I tried showing this to my friends, but they laughed and said it was fake. They said "if it's true y is it not on the news". Hope they have fun when the internet becomes "Windows 98 Simulator"

At 7/12/17 11:08 PM, Psychopath wrote:

Oh boy, oh boy, what could this be?

Do you think that is a proposal or something that actually passed?

At 7/13/17 01:36 AM, Izzy-A wrote:

At 7/12/17 11:08 PM, Psychopath wrote:

Oh boy, oh boy, what could this be?

Do you think that is a proposal or something that actually passed?

At the very tippy top, it says "Adopted: February 26, 2015"

I get you completely and I've long since joined it, personal wise these money grubbing bastards either need to be booted or hung.

Personally I'm in favor of the later because they do nothing but make normal citizens lives a living hell in the name of their greed and sense of control.

Liberal bastards.

At 7/12/17 11:14 AM, Izzy-A wrote: Net Neutrality is a bad thing. More regulation for the internet is going to cause prices to go higher and quality to go down until leftists declare that we need a single payer internet.

I can't convince anyone on here who's already on board the Net Neutrality train. Please do your research, look at the counterarguments, stop falling for the propaganda and flowery language.

YOU need to piss off, RIGHT NOW! You liberal, commie piece of shit wrapped in skin. Normally I have better control over myself than this but I can't stand you controlling, liberal pieces of garbage.

The only thing you're preaching, boy, is the practical enslavement of the internet and over people's lives on it, if Net Neutrality is brought down our lives are virtually over.

You power and money grubbing scum disgust me.

At 7/13/17 03:48 AM, Psychopath wrote:

At 7/13/17 01:36 AM, Izzy-A wrote:

At 7/12/17 11:08 PM, Psychopath wrote:

Oh boy, oh boy, what could this be?

Do you think that is a proposal or something that actually passed?

At the very tippy top, it says "Adopted: February 26, 2015"

My mistake then, I did not know there was something that has been passed recently.

Now the question is, will more regulations be passed? How much bureaucracy are we to expect as time goes? You seem to be on the side of wanting full government control of our internet, since that's where massive regulation leads to. My answer is creating a system so other companies can compete with each other.

The way this is headed, we are going to end up at a point in which the Comcasts of the world a stripped of their business and their facilities become government owned. You only get one provider for your internet, and it'll be the same speed for everyone. The closer you get to socialism, the less food you get and are forced to suffer through poor living conditions.

Done by cluck-cluck a Canuck (maybe vote for internet holidays too, so world-wide folks can get to really know each other... When's the last time any one of u sweet NG'ers got a personal letter?... Maybe a toon is somewhere in there hmm.)

Well were fucked for sure.

Wish I have "my memeber of congress". Well, I did send a letter anyway. I think there's kind of too much attempts at pinning the Net with laws and/or money.

So this also affects other countries then too. Im pretty sure if NG suffers for America, it also suffers for other countries. Wouldnt this upset other countries? America monopolizing something they dont even own?

If this passes, i think this would start a civil war.

Hello awesome people of the NG Community, I present to you my kickass channel, this is no bullshit or anything like that, and subscribe if you actually ENJOY my content... no sub for sub crap, I just want to entertain and make others smile =] On my channel I will be making Mugen vids, Mario levels, Music, and much more! If you are into badass retro 90's games, then this is the place for you.

Channel Welcoming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj0S1hFhcH8

At 7/13/17 11:21 AM, Izzy-A wrote: My answer is creating a system so other companies can compete with each other.

Competition is good. But there's a problem that competition can be either FAIR or NOT FAIR. Imagine that one of the runners starts half-distance ahead. That's still a competition - but can we really call it this way. The same way is with companies. In our world, a competition is almost never fair. But unlike sport, this affects not only competing companies, but their consumers too - the citizens. And since government is obliged to protec its citizens, it's OBLIGED to at least try to keep all the "runners" on "one line".
And NetNeutrality creates such a line for content providers. Here you go guys, do it, show yourselves, you all have ONE STARTING LINE - speed at wich you can deliver your content. And so, the quality of the content becomes the ONLY mean to attract consumers.
If NetNeutrality is gone, then we have TWO means to attract users - quality AND speed of its delivery. BUT! The latter will depend not only on you talent, skills and all - it will depend on MONEY. Money required to JUST ENTER THE COMPETITION, not to "run"! And even when you've entered the competition, you can find others already way ahead of you - because they already had more money. Yes, it's still a competition - but can we call it this way?
Of course, you can say - you can gain money through your content thus advancing to another "start line". But in fact, gaining money for starters is DAMN HARD. REALLY DAMN HARD. And in most cases it's not about talent - it's about other things, skills and knowledge. And process of gaining those starting money can just swallow all the time you could've used for creating a better content. Especially if places where you can gain those money (like croudfunding platforms, etc.) are also hit by "starting line difference".
You other argument was that of ISP's won't charge popular sites. Yes. They won't. But we don't speak about popular sites. We speak about ALL the sites. About sites that are not popular. About sites that aren't even created. About sites that will die unnoticed because no one will wait for it's content to looooooaaaaaaadddddd "please try again later". We speak about your little blog that will have 0 visitors.
Your third argument was about posibility of changing a provider. Let's imagine we live in a perfect world and you ALWAYS have another option. BUT. NetNeutrality doesn't take that option from you. You can awlays change it, right? And, just as with cintent providers, NN creates a "one starting line" for ISPs. Here you go guys - you give content providers the same speed, so to attract customers, you need to improve other things. Service quality, personnel skills, good techsupport, etc. Without NN, ISPs competion will turn into "Come to our side, we have fast lane for Youtube". Also, you should always keep in mind a posssibility of big companies making a secret deals and dividing the market. NN at least prevents them from doing it in terms of content providers.
Your fourth arfument, and I regard it as the strongest and fairest, was about a risk of overregulation and creating a single-provider government-controlled Net. Yes. There is such a risk. After all, any laws is about balancing and finding a necessary measure of regulation. But, as I said in the beginnig, we insist on government fulfilling its duty of protecting fair competition. Of course, we will be sure to keep an eye on the process and in case government will try to overstep the border, destroy the whole competition and seize control over the Net, we will be against this as well. But for now a risk of creating a case of absolutely unfair competition is much higher.
Pheww.. I made some ranting here. Sorry if there are some poor sentences, English isn't my born language. Anyway, I found this topic to be really interesting and important so I couldn't help but post this.

At 7/13/17 02:23 PM, RemileOduen wrote:

At 7/13/17 11:21 AM, Izzy-A wrote: My answer is creating a system so other companies can compete with each other.

Competition is good. But there's a problem that competition can be either FAIR or NOT FAIR.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. When I say competition, I mean between the ISPs, not websites. If there is competition between ISPs, there wouldn't be the problems you're talking about.

First, it's important to note that none of these issues that you guys are addressing have happened. N.N. is a preventative measure, nothing more. The problems that Comcast had with Netflix, or issues with Verizon, have been already fixed through compromises between them. Are we now going to make more and more regulations based on what we think might happen in the future? That's a dangerous path forward which ends with government control of internet if no one puts a stop to it.

"Come to our side, we have fast lane for Youtube"

There's nothing wrong with that, if an ISP has an incentive such as that, the consumer should be allowed to make the choice of subscribing to them. If you oppose what that company does, you are free to not subscribe to them.

Collusion within companies rarely happens, and if they do sketchy things, whisteblowers shed a light on them. It's just too risky for corporations to conduct corrupt things.

Of course, we will be sure to keep an eye on the process and in case government will try to overstep the border, destroy the whole competition and seize control over the Net, we will be against this as well.

To do that it is vital to create a better means of competition. A handful of companies own all the pipes, which have been created through taxpayer money. The system was already set up unfair for others to compete, so that system needs to be altered in someway so that more companies can compete. That's the only way you can keep problems from growing, allow the consumer the power to take away the revenue of ISPs if they deem them to be corrupt. Deregulation is also necessary so small businesses won't be burdened by all the hoops they have to jump through in order to compete with a giant like Comcast.

Thanks for keeping things civil, by the way.

A lot of anti net-neutrality arguments goes on around this assumption that a 'elimination of regulation' would create 'room for new companies'.

However, the creation of new ISPs has been hampered by corporate interference from Comcast, TW and AT&T. Why would these companies marketing their 'fast lanes and slow lanes' - be lobbying for something that would 'create competition'... when these same companies have bought their way to monopolize internet service in America?

They wouldn't.

At 7/13/17 03:02 PM, Izzy-A wrote:

"Come to our side, we have fast lane for Youtube"

There's nothing wrong with that, if an ISP has an incentive such as that, the consumer should be allowed to make the choice of subscribing to them. If you oppose what that company does, you are free to not subscribe to them.

It might be nothing wrong in terms of economy, but it's heck of an inconvinience for users. Imagine that your favorite pancakes suddenly disappeared from all the convinience stores and you have to ride for a few hours to another city to buy them. But than you won't make it in time to buy otherr stuff. See?

Collusion within companies rarely happens, and if they do sketchy things, whisteblowers shed a light on them. It's just too risky for corporations to conduct corrupt things.

You know... They don't just happen. They are constantly existing. It's a reality. It happens everywhere, it's just another side of big buiseness. So, sorry, I won't believe in ISPs good will and hones trading strategy. Even though I want to believe, I've seen too much of examples that it's an unreachable dreamland.

To do that it is vital to create a better means of competition. A handful of companies own all the pipes, which have been created through taxpayer money. The system was already set up unfair for others to compete, so that system needs to be altered in someway so that more companies can compete. That's the only way you can keep problems from growing, allow the consumer the power to take away the revenue of ISPs if they deem them to be corrupt. Deregulation is also necessary so small businesses won't be burdened by all the hoops they have to jump through in order to compete with a giant like Comcast.

You know, I don't really see how deregulation will give users a power to take away ISP revenue. We live in a world where power=money. And deregulation gives ISPs even more money, thus more power. ISP won't suffer from loss of some subscribers, as they get another source of money. Add this to the part about shady schemes - and you'll see that there IS a high probability that deregulation will lead to just transfering a dominating role from government to companies, killing the idea of fair competition. It might give some space to small ISP, but it's probably such a tiny space that it's barely noticable. Deregulation is something to be handled VERY cautiosly, though I agree that it IS necessary sometimes.

Thanks for keeping things civil, by the way.

I prefer it this way too.

SAVE NET NEUTRALITY

Why should anybody have the right to control our internet connection, what we view, what we watch, and everything else on the internet? This is garbage. I don't care why Net Neutrality has to be taken way, because it shouldn't. It doesn't make sense to control what we can or cannot do on the internet.

At 7/13/17 11:21 AM, Izzy-A wrote:

At 7/13/17 03:48 AM, Psychopath wrote:

At 7/13/17 01:36 AM, Izzy-A wrote:

At 7/12/17 11:08 PM, Psychopath wrote:

Oh boy, oh boy, what could this be?

Do you think that is a proposal or something that actually passed?

At the very tippy top, it says "Adopted: February 26, 2015"

My mistake then, I did not know there was something that has been passed recently.

What was that about doing you're own research, again? I do recall you boasting about being informed.

Now the question is, will more regulations be passed? How much bureaucracy are we to expect as time goes? You seem to be on the side of wanting full government control of our internet, since that's where massive regulation leads to. My answer is creating a system so other companies can compete with each other.

Regulations are how we prevent monopolies like the Standard Oil Company. It's a little known thing, you wouldn't have heard of it. You also probably wouldn't have ever heard of things like price fixing or Ponzi schemes either. Nope, no need for regulation of any kind.

The way this is headed, we are going to end up at a point in which the Comcasts of the world a stripped of their business and their facilities become government owned.

Snowball fallacy.

You only get one provider for your internet, and it'll be the same speed for everyone.

This is by far the dumbest argument I've ever heard in at least a year; that the teensiest amount of regulation will usher in a one-service-provider-only bottleneck, something we already have in the form of the Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner trifecta monopoly.

The closer you get to socialism, the less food you get and are forced to suffer through poor living conditions.

Do you honestly expect anyone to buy into any of this hyperbolic, reactionary horseshit you're peddling? For someone who claims to be well researched, I've yet to see you provide any empirical evidence for any one of your dumbass claims or arguments. Your sole argument against net neutrality has been to duck-tape it to socialism in the most nebulous, presumptuous way possible followed by a deluge of logical fallacies. The fact that you keep trying to tie it to socialism just proves what an idealogue you are.

I support thisI'm Canadian and can't sign it

At 7/13/17 11:21 AM, Izzy-A wrote: Now the question is, will more regulations be passed? How much bureaucracy are we to expect as time goes? You seem to be on the side of wanting full government control of our internet, since that's where massive regulation leads to. My answer is creating a system so other companies can compete with each other.

From my anecdotal account in a rural Amercian area, the ISP that I'm signed up with is the only one in my area. Net Neutrality is to my benefit because it's the only regulation stopping this ISP from taking advantage of me (by throttling some websites for example) as they know I can't switch to another ISP even if I wanted to.

The way this is headed, we are going to end up at a point in which the Comcasts of the world a stripped of their business and their facilities become government owned. You only get one provider for your internet, and it'll be the same speed for everyone. The closer you get to socialism, the less food you get and are forced to suffer through poor living conditions.

Please elaborate with evidence how this scenario: A government-owned, "socialist" Internet is slow for everyone. Versus the scenario we lived in and which Tom described: The no Net Neutrality situation where ISPs can extort money from customers and websites without repercussions.

I don't think we are headed towards the scenario you're describing, but it's not like transferring data and managing ISP infrastructure is very costly. It's not a finite, expensive resource like health care to compare it to socialist countries.

Tom, I am aware of this... and one thing for sure is that if they win this fight and dare charge you more for their "Service" their giving you and to newgrounds, I am going to Claw them to vulnerability and get a few folks from the deep web to help out... i respect net Neutrality and i hate these damn politics and service providers trying to change the ways and how it works...

I will do what i can to help the site if everything starts going down fast...

01010111 01101000 01100101 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01010100 01101001 01101101 01100101 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01010010 01101001 01100111 01101000 01110100 00101100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110011 01110100 01110010 01101001 01101011 01100101 00101110 00101110 00101110 00001010 01010100 01101000 01100101 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01010111 01100101 01100010 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00101100 00100000 01010111 01100101 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01010010 01101001 01100111 01101000 01110100 01110011 00101110 00101110 00101110 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01100101 01101110 01100011 01110010 01111001 01110000 01110100 00101100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01000010 01111001 01110000 01100001 01110011 01110011 00101100 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01101100 01100101 01110100 01110011 00100000 01110011 01100101 01100101 00100000 01101000 01101111 01110111 00100000 01101100 01101111 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101100 01100001 01110011 01110100 00101110 00101110 00101110 00001010 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00001010 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00001010 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00001010 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000 00100000

At 7/12/17 11:42 AM, TomFulp wrote:

At 7/12/17 11:32 AM, Ganon-Dorf wrote: I would sign, but I'm a Canadian and I don't think my signature should be apart of another countries legal proceedings regardless if I agree with them or not.

I'm sure there's a joke about Russia somewhere in here.

If it does pass Net Neutrality the democrats will go on the Russian narrative. If it doesn't Republicans will blame post-obama jargon. Actually I don't know but if it comes down to a veto. I will be sacrificing my oldest son to Satan that Trump vetos it. Republicans don't have a 2/3 majority so the veto can't be override.

At 7/14/17 02:30 AM, Trish-Loves-Tubgirl wrote:

At 7/12/17 11:42 AM, TomFulp wrote:

At 7/12/17 11:32 AM, Ganon-Dorf wrote: I would sign, but I'm a Canadian and I don't think my signature should be apart of another countries legal proceedings regardless if I agree with them or not.

I'm sure there's a joke about Russia somewhere in here.

If it does pass Net Neutrality the democrats will go on the Russian narrative. If it doesn't Republicans will blame post-obama jargon. Actually I don't know but if it comes down to a veto. I will be sacrificing my oldest son to Satan that Trump vetos it. Republicans don't have a 2/3 majority so the veto can't be override.

The thing about Net Neutrality is that the thing about saying that ISPs are "common carriers" and can't fuck over consumers is that it's entirely a rule of the FCC, meaning it can be changed on what basically amounts to a whim with little to no Congressional oversight.

Just thought I'd clear that up, Congress has no power of this unless they legislate something that codifies Net Neutrality in law, instead of it being a rule the FCC picked up.

I don't live in the states though.

Word !

so tired of the Goverments BS

Damn, that really sucks for Americans. Hopefully you guys'll pull through though, It'd be pretty shitty without you guys..

Sigh. Signed this 2 days ago when i saw it on Imgur, i doubt i'd make a difference. This shit about net neutrality has been going on for years. almost a decade now, every time this gets brought back it get tougher.

Reminds me of SOPA and CISPA to an extent.

I can't believe these Co**suckers are actually trying to take a stab at the internet for more dough. Of course they would since the internet is probably the biggest thing in our lives now which is doubling in size every year. Think of all the money they could make if they could take a piece of this digital pie (internet). No matter what they get, it will be big and of course it's the nature of man to try and make money no matter the cost or sacrifice. Thing is, if these people wanted this shit, they'd probably already have it one way or another, they're probably too bored to fight an uproar from people they don't care about. Reading about this right now really pissed me off cause it isn't enough that every ISP is a scum mother fu**er, they wanna take control.

I really think if they could charge us for accessing websites with quarters like in arcades, they would... and they'd make a killing. Screw the big men at the top! Wish more people would notice this and take action.