FCC plans to repeal net neutrality this thursday

[Lushen]

4 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

If there's monopoly rules in place, they don't seem to do a very good job considering a lot of America has a monopoly for their ISP choice, or at best the other option is much worse and they are more or less forced to go with the former.

Monopoly laws are tricky and I would agree the US needs to do a better job recognizing monopolies.  That has nothing to do with nn though.  

5 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

look fella. providing access to the internet and owning the internet are very different. removing title ii protections from the internet makes it easier for internet service providers to control what people see. to control the traffic on the internet. the internet should essentially be treated like public roads, but right now you think they should be treated like private roads. that's simply dangerous.

and for what it's worth, if private roads were as prolific as isp's grip on internet accessibility, i'd argue for more government regulation too.

Tech companies like google have a lot more power to control what we see and do online than ISPs.  They are literally blocking conservative speakers (not the alt-right, regular conservatives) on YouTube right now.  Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube (google again) have huge censorship problems.  They actually have more censorship problems than ISPs as far as I"m concerned.  At least ISPs are blocking websites that are illegal or expensive to them and not just blocking people they don't like.

Twitter is claiming that they're going to ban all "Neo-Nazis" from their service.  But here's the thing, what defines a Neo-Nazi?  Plenty of people call Trump a neo-nazi, does that mean twitter is going to block the american people from being able to see his tweets?  And what about the alt-left aka Antifa? Twitters not doing anything about them?  This is looking extremely politically motivated.

On the other hand we have ISPs triggering people who steal on the internet by blocking bitTorrrent.  

Whose the bad guy?

[Lord Raven]

12 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Now you're talking about monopoly laws which are already in place.

yeah it's not a monopoly when you have two ISPs available and one of them is complete trash and the other is not as bad

[Lushen]

4 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

yeah it's not a monopoly when you have two ISPs available and one of them is complete trash and the other is not as bad

Sounds to me like a duopoly...?  These are fine.  Monopoly laws would disallow these two companies to "work together" so perhaps they are both trash because you don't like paying for internet?

 

When you move to the midwest you accept that there are tornados there.  You may have to buy insurance that covers tornados.  LIkewise, when you move to places without good internet you should expect to not have great internet.  It's not always because these companies are monopolies.  Sometimes its just harder to get infastructure in these areas which results in cheaper infastructure.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Phoenix Wright]

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Monopoly laws are tricky and I would agree the US needs to do a better job recognizing monopolies.  That has nothing to do with nn though.  

Tech companies like google have a lot more power to control what we see and do online than ISPs.  They are literally blocking conservative speakers (not the alt-right, regular conservatives) on YouTube right now.  Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube (google again) have huge censorship problems.  They actually have more censorship problems than ISPs as far as I"m concerned.  At least ISPs are blocking websites that are illegal or expensive to them and not just blocking people they don't like.

Twitter is claiming that they're going to ban all "Neo-Nazis" from their service.  But here's the thing, what defines a Neo-Nazi?  Plenty of people call Trump a neo-nazi, does that mean twitter is going to block the american people from being able to see his tweets?  And what about the alt-left aka Antifa? Twitters not doing anything about them?  This is looking extremely politically motivated.

On the other hand we have ISPs triggering people who steal on the internet by blocking bitTorrrent.  

Whose the bad guy?

first of all, source. yt is not blocking content, they are demonetizing lots of it. and to many, many more than simply conservatives. 

second of all, those are websites. private websites. they are free to do what they want with their own ip. internet roads are not intellectual property. they are public property. no one owns the internet.

[Lord Raven]

Just now, Lushen said:

Sounds to me like a duopoly...?  But whatever.

I was being snippy. If you have a lack of choices, then that is not a monopoly, but it also provides a lack of competition because if both sides are the only option and they're both of low quality, then consumers are stuck and have no options short of cancelling internet (which people cannot afford to do when everything is online). Someone who sucks the dick of unregulated capitalism as hard as you do should be aware of this issue.

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Monopoly laws are tricky and I would agree the US needs to do a better job recognizing monopolies.  That has nothing to do with nn though.  

Tech companies like google have a lot more power to control what we see and do online than ISPs.  They are literally blocking conservative speakers (not the alt-right, regular conservatives) on YouTube right now.  Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube (google again) have huge censorship problems.  They actually have more censorship problems than ISPs as far as I"m concerned.  At least ISPs are blocking websites that are illegal or expensive to them and not just blocking people they don't like.

Twitter is claiming that they're going to ban all "Neo-Nazis" from their service.  But here's the thing, what defines a Neo-Nazi?  Plenty of people call Trump a neo-nazi, does that mean twitter is going to block the american people from being able to see his tweets?  And what about the alt-left aka Antifa? Twitters not doing anything about them?  This is looking extremely politically motivated.

On the other hand we have ISPs triggering people who steal on the internet by blocking bitTorrrent.  

Whose the bad guy?

This is whataboutism. I mean, Saddam Hussein was a bad dude, so therefore we shouldn't complaina bout ISPs either.

Whether or not twitter/youtube/netflix censor conservative speech (btw congrats on not offering a source on that, since I don't believe you that it's primarily what they do) is entirely up to them. They own their own webspace, they have every right to do with it as they please within the law. But this problem doesn't really exist, so they're not even hypocritical.

Your viewpoint also states "companies should be allowed to do what they want," right as you complain that twitter/facebook/google/etc do exactly what they want. The internet is a utility that is utilized in the majority of jobs and job applications so it is actually necessary, and in cases of anti-NN in other countries they have restricted access to even email behind a paywall. The point is that websites can do generally what they want and there always exist other alternatives for those websites (google censoring you? use bing or yahoo if you're really pissed, otherwise get good at google searching, because I've found so much right wing shit on google searches and youtube that I cannot believe you).

So no, companies that offer utilities like ISPs should not be allowed to do as they please, but companies that offer nonessential services like facebook should be allowed to do as they please. This is the argument. You've provided nothing to make this seem hypocritical, contrary to what you think.

[Lushen]

5 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

first of all, source. yt is not blocking content, they are demonetizing lots of it. and to many, many more than simply conservatives. 

second of all, those are websites. private websites. they are free to do what they want with their own ip. internet roads are not intellectual property. they are public property. no one owns the internet.

They are blocking the revenue.  For some people, this is a primary source of income.   They also block them from appearing on their home page.  

But wait.  I use YouTube every day.  I don't need it like I need water or electricity.  But hey, I consider YouTube a utility!!!!  Besides, youtube doesnt OWN the content published there.  They PROVIDE it.  Both YouTube and ISPs are providers.  

Utility does not mean something we use every day.  If it did, my phone and my computer would be utilities.  

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Zasplach]

3 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Monopoly laws are tricky and I would agree the US needs to do a better job recognizing monopolies.  That has nothing to do with nn though.  

Tech companies like google have a lot more power to control what we see and do online than ISPs.  They are literally blocking conservative speakers (not the alt-right, regular conservatives) on YouTube right now.  Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube (google again) have huge censorship problems.  They actually have more censorship problems than ISPs as far as I"m concerned.  At least ISPs are blocking websites that are illegal or expensive to them and not just blocking people they don't like.

Twitter is claiming that they're going to ban all "Neo-Nazis" from their service.  But here's the thing, what defines a Neo-Nazi?  Plenty of people call Trump a neo-nazi, does that mean twitter is going to block the american people from being able to see his tweets?  And what about the alt-left aka Antifa? Twitters not doing anything about them?  This is looking extremely politically motivated.

On the other hand we have ISPs triggering people who steal on the internet by blocking bitTorrrent.  

Whose the bad guy?

NN has everything to do with monopoly laws though, the regulation of monopolies are what the federal bureaucracy was created to do, the first real department was the department of commerce meant to regulate mostly the railroad industry that was literally bankrupting thousands or heartland farmers because they could.  The FCC was created to regulate the communications aspect of the economy: tv, radio, and the internet.  Its rules are the main means by which Americans regulate monopolies because the Congress doesn't have the appetite for it because the average American doesn't understand it and big companies and the money and lobbyists to fight it, so no political will exists.  

And the 2nd part is basically what @Phoenix Wright said, they are private companies and can have whatever private opinions they want to have like private individuals are.

[Phoenix Wright]

ok you're an idiot

[Lushen]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

ok you're an idiot

Well said.  You've completely deconstructed my argument and I have no idea how to respond. You've completely changed my opinion on everything.  I am going to spend the rest of my life fighting the repeal of nn now.  Thank you, kind sir!  Please share more of this mystical wisdom so I can teach my children how to stay alive in this world that I clearly do not understand.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Zasplach]

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

They are blocking the revenue.  For some people, this is a primary source of income.   They also block them from appearing on their home page.  

But wait.  I use YouTube every day.  I don't need it like I need water or electricity.  But hey, I consider YouTube a utility!!!!  Besides, youtube doesnt OWN the content published there.  They PROVIDE it.  Both YouTube and ISPs are providers.  

Youtube is a provider, but it isn't the only one in its field, there are lots of video sharing sites, hundreds, thousands, maybe more I don't know.  So even if it is a utility it doesn't have to be regulated like we do monopolistic utilities because there are lots of providers and producers and consumers have basically equal access to the product. 

[Lord Raven]

8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

They are blocking the revenue.  For some people, this is a primary source of income.   They also block them from appearing on their home page.  

But wait.  I use YouTube every day.  I don't need it like I need water or electricity.  But hey, I consider YouTube a utility!!!!  Besides, youtube doesnt OWN the content published there.  They PROVIDE it.  Both YouTube and ISPs are providers.  

 

6 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Well said.  You've completely deconstructed my argument and I have no idea how to respond. You've completely changed my opinion on everything.  I am going to spend the rest of my life fighting the repeal of nn now.  Thank you, kind sir!

You don't need it like you need electricity or water, so it's not a utility. What the fuck are you trying to say?

Seriously, this is why I don't bother addressing your arguments like 40% of the time. You use strawmen. You use whataboutism. You take no means to evaluate your own life or arguments.

This is seriously what people like you do. All you do is throw talking points at us, change the subject, shift the goalposts and constantly ocntradict yourself, then get snippy and turn into a gigantic smartass when people tell you the truth like @Phoenix Wright just did. Your argument style is known as a gish gallop, where all you do is try to overwhelm people who disagree with you with multiple individually weak arguments, causing us to go away from the conversation due to your inability to want to discuss anything with any detail or nuance.

Like shit, I can continue to list every single time people have tried to take you seriously and you just go around and took a dump on them, regardless of the sources of factual information they provide. You have absolutely no place discussing any sort of politics or contentious issues. You're seriously a joke and your mentality is exactly the kind that got Trump elected and repealing NN. In fact, you've said that NN is a good thing, but you don't think it's necessary, so your argument only generally hinges on "I don't want the government to do stuff." Considering all the other stuff you've said has been thoroughly contradicted in this thread, in many cases prior to your first post in here, you aren't providing an argument.

If you truly want to be a contrarian, look at how @SoulWeaver did it. He brought up how NN isn't an issue in his country and he brought up why, but he also came to an understanding as it why it's almost necessary in the United States, while teaching me that a lack of NN laws could work here if we had a healthier infrastructure for competition between ISPs.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

7 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

Youtube is a provider, but it isn't the only one in its field, there are lots of video sharing sites, hundreds, thousands, maybe more I don't know.  So even if it is a utility it doesn't have to be regulated like we do monopolistic utilities because there are lots of providers and producers and consumers have basically equal access to the product. 

There are hundreds of ISPs.  If anything, YouTube is more monopolistic among video providers than Comcast is among ISPs.  If I want to make a conservative talking points channel I can't go anywhere.  If I go to vimeo I have no chance of making any money because no one goes there.  But if I go to YouTube they'll ban my content from making any money.  This is an online monopoly that is censoring conservative thoughts and expressions.  

 

Lord Raven, I have to explain this to you every single time I come on here.  If you're going to make an entire post about me that has nothing to do with the topic, I'm not going to reply.  

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Zasplach]

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

There are hundreds of ISPs.  If anything, YouTube is more monopolistic among video providers than Comcast is among ISPs.  If I want to make a conservative talking points channel I can't go anywhere.  If I go to vimeo I have no chance of making any money because no one goes there.  But if I go to YouTube they'll ban my content from making any money.  This is an online monopoly.  

Do you have access to hundreds of ISPs? Because I don't @Lord Raven and I are in the same boat, I live in the Phoenix area, we have 2 ISP providers, Cox and Century Link, Cox is very okay and Century Link only works in some parts of the valley, on the other hand you can use any video sharing site anytime you want to, and I could open dozens of windows right now to lots of sites, in fact I could create my own site to share any type of wholesome or unwholesome or conservative or liberal or gross or cool or any type of video I want.  Think about your argument without the personal feelings, maybe Youtube is blocking conservative content, I don't know, but they aren't a monopoly none of the evidence points to that.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Zasplach

[Tryhard]

9 minutes ago, Lushen said:

There are hundreds of ISPs.  If anything, YouTube is more monopolistic among video providers than Comcast is among ISPs.  If I want to make a conservative talking points channel I can't go anywhere.  If I go to vimeo I have no chance of making any money because no one goes there.  But if I go to YouTube they'll ban my content from making any money.  This is an online monopoly that is censoring conservative thoughts and expressions.  

Who's getting banned? You do realise that ALL political channels have been receiving mass reduction to their ad revenue, right? It's because of "provocative" (even when it's granted, stupid) titles, and even without that, channels with "inappropriate content" have been receiving less lucrative ads, including many progressive channels. It's kind of a big thing on youtube right now, it's affecting quite a lot of people.

There is a difference between a website choosing what to have on it and an ISP that has the ability to control your entire use of the internet, by the way.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

4 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

Do you have access to hundreds of ISPs? Because I don't @Lord Raven and I are in the same boat, I live in the Phoenix area, we have 2 ISP providers, Cox and Century Link, Cox is very okay and Century Link only works in some parts of the valley, on the other hand you can use any video sharing site anytime you want to, and I could open dozens of windows right now to lots of sites, in fact I could create by own site to share any type of wholesome or unwholesome or conservative or liberal or gross or cool or any type of video I want.  Think about your argument without the personal feelings, maybe Youtube is blocking conservative content, I don't know, but they aren't a monopoly none of the evidence points to that.

I'm comparing YouTube and ISPs not because I think YouTube should be regulated but because I think its ridiculous to say that either should be regulated.  They are both the same thing.  Internet service providers PROVIDE internet.  Anyone can go and start a new ISP company but it is unlikely to succeed.  Likewise, anyone can start a YouTube-clone but it is unlikely to succeed.  In one case we are saying that the ISP should not be allowed to censor certain services because they cost more money (like bitTorrent).  In the other case, we are saying that YouTube should be allowed to censor certain channels just because they don't like them.

Either

1.  YouTube and ISPs should be regulated
2.  YouTube and ISPs should remain free

They both PROVIDE content they do not OWN.  They're actually fairly similar.  Just one is on the internet any one is online.

@Tryhard

 

Spoiler

Note, you can actually go to the video by Jimmy Kimmel and see that he is STILL collecting ad revenue.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Johann]

13 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Monopoly laws are tricky and I would agree the US needs to do a better job recognizing monopolies.  That has nothing to do with nn though.  

Tech companies like google have a lot more power to control what we see and do online than ISPs.  They are literally blocking conservative speakers (not the alt-right, regular conservatives) on YouTube right now.  Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube (google again) have huge censorship problems.  They actually have more censorship problems than ISPs as far as I"m concerned.  At least ISPs are blocking websites that are illegal or expensive to them and not just blocking people they don't like.

Twitter is claiming that they're going to ban all "Neo-Nazis" from their service.  But here's the thing, what defines a Neo-Nazi?  Plenty of people call Trump a neo-nazi, does that mean twitter is going to block the american people from being able to see his tweets?  And what about the alt-left aka Antifa? Twitters not doing anything about them?  This is looking extremely politically motivated.

On the other hand we have ISPs triggering people who steal on the internet by blocking bitTorrrent.  

Whose the bad guy?

Do you really think that this is only going to affect people who torrent shit? It's going to affect everything you do on the internet, including streaming, downloading, gaming, and trying to find information. You're guaranteed to be paying extra money to play otherwise free games like Fire Emblem Heroes or use Netflix/Youtube/Facebook, regardless of what those services are providing. Losing Net Neutrality also gives ISPs the ability to create monopolies of services if they throttle or block services they want to compete with.

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

There are hundreds of ISPs.  If anything, YouTube is more monopolistic among video providers than Comcast is among ISPs.  If I want to make a conservative talking points channel I can't go anywhere.  If I go to vimeo I have no chance of making any money because no one goes there.  But if I go to YouTube they'll ban my content from making any money.  This is an online monopoly.  

YouTube isn't the problem here, nor does it ban conservative talking point channels or hold a monopoly. This is detracting from the discussion. Furthermore, "hundreds of ISPs" is bullshit as most of the country has at best one or two ISPs, and the quality of the service isn't stellar.

[Zasplach]

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

I'm comparing YouTube and ISPs not because I think YouTube should be regulated but because I think its ridiculous to say that either should be regulated.  They are both the same thing.  Internet service providers PROVIDE internet.  Anyone can go and start a new ISP company but it is unlikely to succeed.  Likewise, anyone can start a YouTube-clone but it is unlikely to succeed.  In one case we are saying that the ISP should not be allowed to censor certain services because they cost more money (like bitTorrent).  In the other case, we are saying that YouTube should be allowed to censor certain channels just because they don't like them.

Either

1.  YouTube and ISPs should be regulated
2.  YouTube and ISPs should remain free

They both PROVIDE content they do not OWN.  They're actually fairly similar.  Just one is on the internet any one is online.

There is a clear and obvious difference though, youtube and other video providers survive and fail on the capitalistic merits, whichever people think are better for whatever reason.  On the other hand ISPs have huge barriers to entry and large providers can keep small providers out by monopolizing the means of giving the internet the literal infrastructure.  It's why we as a society we regulate banks, hospitals, utilities and the likes because you and I can't start a bank or an ISP and have chance to make it with the big guys, but I could certainly start a video sharing site and have a chance to compete with youtube, ergo capitalism works.

[Lushen]

1 minute ago, Johann said:

Do you really think that this is only going to affect people who torrent shit? It's going to affect everything you do on the internet, including streaming, downloading, gaming, and trying to find information. You're guaranteed to be paying extra money to play otherwise free games like Fire Emblem Heroes or use Netflix/Youtube/Facebook, regardless of what those services are providing. Losing Net Neutrality also gives ISPs the ability to create monopolies of services if they throttle or block services they want to compete with.

YouTube isn't the problem here, nor does it ban conservative talking point channels or hold a monopoly. This is detracting from the discussion. Furthermore, "hundreds of ISPs" is bullshit as most of the country has at best one or two ISPs, and the quality of the service isn't stellar.

No, I was replying specifically to someone (can't remember who), who was talking about how terrible it was that ISPs blocked bitTorrent which is like 95+% illegal content.

See the video I posted to Tryhard.  Jimmy Kimmel gets to make political statements about gun control in the wake of a shooting but some other dude can't raise money for the victims because "It's not their policy to politicize tragedies".  So basically YouTube wants to promote an agenda against gun control and they not only let Kimmel collect ad revenue but also allowed his content to get on the front page and appear in people's recommended box when the other guy was blacklisted and you wouldn't see the video unless you specifically searched for it.  Google is HIGHLY political with their online content.  

[Lord Raven]

^ nice to know Phoenix is just as fucky as Tucson is with ISP availability. It's a shame, because my parents had options in Maryland while I was growing up, and I was really annoyed to see all of those options basically taken away when I moved here. There is no fiber optics and because we're trapped between two mediocre to bad ISPs, they have no need to implement it.

16 minutes ago, Lushen said:

There are hundreds of ISPs.  If anything, YouTube is more monopolistic among video providers than Comcast is among ISPs.  If I want to make a conservative talking points channel I can't go anywhere.  If I go to vimeo I have no chance of making any money because no one goes there.  But if I go to YouTube they'll ban my content from making any money.  This is an online monopoly that is censoring conservative thoughts and expressions.  

There are not hundreds of ISPs available in any given location.

16 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Lord Raven, I have to explain this to you every single time I come on here.  If you're going to make an entire post about me that has nothing to do with the topic, I'm not going to reply.  

I've pointed out issues with you constantly. You don't argue in good faith. All you do is argue, argue, argue to win. You don't give two shits about anything else. You sent me a PM saying "no offense" over a disagreement, showing me that you're probably soft because you assumed that I'm soft over disagreements. I responded, you never responded back, instead you got snippier and more snide in public. The only reason that I continue to call you out in public is because you refuse to respond to me in private.

I'm perfectly willing to have a debate with you. You're not willing to have a debate with anyone else; you think you are, but you say shit like this

27 minutes ago, Lushen said:

They are blocking the revenue.  For some people, this is a primary source of income.   They also block them from appearing on their home page.  

But wait.  I use YouTube every day.  I don't need it like I need water or electricity.  But hey, I consider YouTube a utility!!!!  Besides, youtube doesnt OWN the content published there.  They PROVIDE it.  Both YouTube and ISPs are providers.  

Utility does not mean something we use every day.  If it did, my phone and my computer would be utilities.  

That makes me wonder if you're just trying to be an asshole. Also saying "I'm a trump-hating conservative" is something I've seen said, almost unanimously, with Trump loving conservatives who want to try to win an argument over "liberals."

Not only that, but you're choosing the dumbest shit to argue about. I've also responded to you with actual things to contradict your points, and you've said virtually nothing in response. Whenever a post is about you, you just tell the person you're ignoring them, without actually acknowledging the substantial parts.

You really need to re-evaluate why you are here and what your purpose is for arguing. I don't even know; to me it just seemed like you've wanted to win this whole time, which makes it tiresome to deal with you. You're honestly the most unpleasant people to deal with on here, and this is coming from someone who has argued repeatedly with people like Life Admiral and tuvarkz, and has been here since fucking 2008 and participated in all of those shitty tier list debates. One of those debaters is now literally in jail. So congratulations, you're worse than a criminal to me right now.

Me addressing the issues with your arguments and your argument style is 100% relevant to the thread when you refuse to fix any of the issues and you continue to come in here and post almost nothing.

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

They both PROVIDE content they do not OWN.

YOUTUBE does not PROVIDE a UTILITY. It is not NECESSARY to LIVE in the modern WORLD with YOUTUBE.

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

See the video I posted to Tryhard.  Jimmy Kimmel gets to make political statements about gun control in the wake of a shooting but some other dude can't raise money for the victims because "It's not their policy to politicize tragedies".  So basically YouTube wants to promote an agenda against gun control and they not only let Kimmel collect ad revenue but also allowed his content to get on the front page and appear in people's recommended box when the other guy was blacklisted and you wouldn't see the video unless you specifically searched for it.  Google is HIGHLY political with their online content.  

You are speaking in generalities and providing absolutely no specific examples. Jimmy Kimmel is relatively not provocative. Others might be. Try again.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

Just now, Zasplach said:

There is a clear and obvious difference though, youtube and other video providers survive and fail on the capitalistic merits, whichever people think are better for whatever reason.  On the other hand ISPs have huge barriers to entry and large providers can keep small providers out by monopolizing the means of giving the internet the literal infrastructure.  It's why we as a society we regulate banks, hospitals, utilities and the likes because you and I can't start a bank or an ISP and have chance to make it with the big guys, but I could certainly start a video sharing site and have a chance to compete with youtube, ergo capitalism works.

But here's the thing.  Ajit Pai (or whatever his name is) has said the number one reason he wants to repeal the 2015 NN legislation is because all the smaller ISPs are saying that it is creating a huge barrier to enter the market.  Its the SMALLER ISPs that want nn to be repealed, not the larger ones.  At least acc't the FCC.

[Lord Raven]

3 minutes ago, Lushen said:

But here's the thing.  Ajit Pai (or whatever his name is) has said the number one reason he wants to repeal the 2015 NN legislation is because all the smaller ISPs are saying that it is creating a huge barrier to enter the market.  Its the SMALLER ISPs that want nn to be repealed, not the larger ones.  At least acc't the FCC.

How does it create a huge barrier?

Small companies disagree with you, by the way: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/30-small-isps-urge-ajit-pai-to-preserve-title-ii-and-net-neutrality-rules/

I don't trust your ability to read, but straight from the mouth of small companies:

Quote

"We have encountered no new additional barriers to investment or deployment as a result of the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and have long supported network neutrality as a core principle for the deployment of networks for the American public to access the Internet," the ISPs said in a letter to Pai that was organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

The current rules are necessary "to address the anticompetitive practices of the largest players in the market," but "the FCC’s current course threatens the viability of competitive entry and competitive viability," the companies wrote.

"As direct competitors to the biggest cable and telephone companies, we have reservations about any plan at the FCC that seeks to enhance their market power without any meaningful restraints on their ability to monopolize large swaths of the Internet," the companies said. Finally, the letter criticized the recent decision by Congress and President Trump to repeal the FCC's online privacy rules. The privacy repeal was supported by Pai.

Your arguments and conclusions show me a lack of research on your part. You need to stop speaking out of your ass.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

How does it create a huge barrier?

I don't know I just know that Ajit Pai has stated that's what's going on.  It might not be true and I'm not claiming it is true.  I'm only saying that is the main argument Ajit Pai has stated.  It does however suggest that a lot of small ISPs are lobbying on behalf of the internet freedom act.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Johann]

3 minutes ago, Lushen said:

See the video I posted to Tryhard.  Jimmy Kimmel gets to make political statements about gun control in the wake of a shooting but some other dude can't raise money for the victims because "It's not their policy to politicize tragedies".  So basically YouTube wants to promote an agenda against gun control and they not only let Kimmel collect ad revenue but also allowed his content to get on the front page and appear in people's recommended box when the other guy was blacklisted and you wouldn't see the video unless you specifically searched for it.  Google is HIGHLY political with their online content.  

Doesn't matter here, because YouTube isn't the problem in this discussion. Don't detract from the topic, this is about the ISPs.

[Tryhard]

9 minutes ago, Lushen said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Note, you can actually go to the video by Jimmy Kimmel and see that he is STILL collecting ad revenue.

Yeah, you'll actually find that it screws over people that are not "popular" or are already corporations that want to make videos on youtube. I don't dispute, or agree with this.

That doesn't change the fact that it's affecting many people currently regardless of political ideology.

[Lord Raven]

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

I don't know I just know that Ajit Pai has stated that's what's going on.  It might not be true and I'm not claiming it is true.  I'm only saying that is the main argument Ajit Pai has stated.  It does however suggest that a lot of small ISPs are lobbying on behalf of the internet freedom act.

If you don't know why, then why use it as an argument? They disagree with you, re-read my edits.