(12-27-2017, 03:20 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(12-26-2017, 05:34 PM)TJBender Wrote: Read through this graphic. If you remain convinced that the end of net neutrality in a situation with government-sanctioned monopolies is a good thing, then I give up. This is the most real-world analogy I've seen:





I'll also leave this here. It comes from a person I trust completely who works for a major internet provider in a position to know about such things. It goes like this: said major ISP is drawing up plans to introduce a "streaming package" and is actively seeking "partners" amongst major streaming services to be included in that package. The conversation about PR has centered around how to make it look like an "enhancement" to existing plans, even though the current working version has no decrease in anyone's bill, just an increase to those who wish to use streaming content.

So once, "Hey, look, we're speeding up your internet!" becomes, "Now we're going to charge you a whole lot more to do anything that benefits from that speed!", remember the day that a bought and paid for Verizon lawyer who weaseled his way into control of the FCC put a rule into effect that allows Verizon to act like the monopoly it is and leave its subscribers no recourse for those actions.

Interesting that a vegan CEO won't sell cheese for the hamburgers he does sell.

(12-27-2017, 02:27 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: Just checking to see if everyone made it through this net neutrality thing alive and well?