Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   The hope of Net Neutrality took a major blow on Tuesday as 95 of the candidates that pledged support for it lost in the elections   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 233
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

1309 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2010 at 10:56 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



233 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-06 11:15:53 AM  
heinekenftw: An excellent analogy for NN.

Thanks.
 
2010-11-06 11:16:10 AM  
But I'm sure we'll be able to get unlimited access to Breitbart and foxnews.com.
 
2010-11-06 11:17:34 AM  
Shaggy_C: bulldg4life: Then, if I really want to spurge and get the premium internet, I'll be able to view Youtube and play Counterstrike with less lag.

Sort of like the difference between shelling out $9.95 for 56k, 19.99 for DSL, or 29.99 for cable?


Not at all

For 9.95, you get 56k bandwidth for ALL websites equally.
For 19.99, you get DSL for ALL websites equally.
For 29.99, you get cable for ALL websites equally.

Each tier of bandwidth treats every website the same, that's how it should be.
 
2010-11-06 11:17:36 AM  
IlGreven: Weaver95: Oh and incidentally - everyone who voted Republican this season..when your taxes go up and you find that the internet has a meter on it, don't whine to me about it. Don't blame Obama, don't complain, don't say it's the democrats who did it...it will be YOUR fault and ONLY your fault.

Remember guys...you voted for this. own it.

Uhm, yeah. Sure. They haven't owned up to a thing for 30 years. Everything is the Democrats' fault. "My Ponzi scheme would've worked, too, if those libruls hadn't torn it down!"

And the sad part is, the public believes them. Every time. This is the biggest case of Battered Wife Syndrome in the history of man.


I just made that analogy last night.
 
2010-11-06 11:17:51 AM  
jbuist: sweetmelissa31: I love when people are opposed to something they know nothing about.

Ever see a Slashdot discussion on the topic? It's not exactly one sided and I'd wager that that demographic knows more about network engineering than the Fark readership.

FWIW I'm against Net Neutrality too.


FWIW you're an idiot.

Please tell me what net neutrality is? or is that a gotchya question?
 
2010-11-06 11:17:55 AM  
You've got to be kidding me. Glenn Beck's been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as Teabagging half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as Cleon Skousen once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

It's just common sense.
 
2010-11-06 11:18:05 AM  
Shaggy_C: Sort of like the difference between shelling out $9.95 for 56k, 19.99 for DSL, or 29.99 for cable?

There is a difference between paying for content and paying for bandwith.

There is no discernible difference between viewing Fark or viewing reddit.

Yet, eventually, someone will charge for that difference
 
2010-11-06 11:18:09 AM  
Weaver95: toomey is an investment banker and very sympathetic too his former banker buddies. wanna know what group kicked off our economic collapse? investment bankers.

yeah. great move. thanks man.



Fark Sestak. He is a progressive. He got fired from the Navy for being an authoritarian douche not fit for command.

Don't tell me you actually voted for him?
 
2010-11-06 11:21:38 AM  
jbuist: Show us your Marx: How come?

/serious question

Because there are perfectly legitimate reasons to change the priority of network traffic based on the contents or route of it. The simple fact that we're not already seeing this, when the technology has existed for years, is a source of amazement for me. I'm of the opinion, based on what I've heard from other techs, is that ISPs aren't doing it right now because they're lazy.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to pay an extra $5 to have my VoIP traffic to Vonage given a higher priority on my cable company's network? Or maybe a small premium to get better service to XBOX Live? I do all of these things on my home network and think it'd be great if that high priority would be carried along the chain. Hell, give me a discount if I agree that non-standard (ie: BitTorrent) traffic can take low priority.

Likewise why shouldn't content distributors be able to pay more for better priority? If the tubes get clogged up, and Google's reserved the #1 priority spot, well, they still get the traffic that can fit through. Everybody else gets backlogged until the pipe clears.

Or, in the event of some kind of disaster, where network services are severely interrupted should the ISPs be able to change priority in the fly? What happens when there's another 9/11 type event and everybody's mashing refresh to see what's on CNN? Or streaming video coverage of the events? Should the ISP not be allowed to shut down BitTorrent traffic to help clear things up for what they deem to be the most likely important service to the majority of their customers? Why not throttle back video services at a time like that to make sure there's still room for basic communication like email, IM, and VoIP?



And right there show's your failure of understanding. Net neutrality is not about treating bit-torrent and VOIP or video streaming or gaming streaming as equals. It's about treating each endpoint as equals.

Streaming video from CNN and streaming video from FOX should be treated the same. Streaming video and a bit-torrent have very different needs and it's ok to treat high latency and low latency communications differently. Net neutrality isn't about that. You know just enough to think you're informed and that's sad.
 
2010-11-06 11:21:42 AM  
scseth: I know you know the difference between tiers of bandwidth rates and tiers of content.

Yep, tiers of content already exist today as well. It's all based on money, and sometimes just pettiness on behalf of the content provider. Remember the whole Fox/Cablevision thing from a few weeks back? Fox basically blocked any Cablevision user from accessing any of their websites, including Hulu. Do you see that as a gross violation of net neutrality?
 
2010-11-06 11:21:53 AM  
I want to know why tier 1 companies aren't raising holy hell about this. They've got a pretty sweet little racket going on and the public, at large, has no freaking idea they even exist as part of how "the internet" works.

You'd think rumblings that would upset the natural order of things would have them putting the hammer down.
 
2010-11-06 11:22:32 AM  
Phil Herup: Weaver95: toomey is an investment banker and very sympathetic too his former banker buddies. wanna know what group kicked off our economic collapse? investment bankers.

yeah. great move. thanks man.


Fark Sestak. He is a progressive. He got fired from the Navy for being an authoritarian douche not fit for command.

Don't tell me you actually voted for him?


Goddamn progressives go to use for change that does. Eventually the entire country as goes to change will wrap around somewhere. Progressives wish even more certain as to want for hope that 1864 peace.

Its Cyclical.
 
2010-11-06 11:22:52 AM  
So here's what's going to happen over the next two years:

NOTHING AT ALL.

Anything the Republicans get past the House will be killed by the Senate or vetoed by the President. Anything the Democrats want to do will be killed in the House before it takes its first steps. Anything that goes before the Supreme Court will be ruled on in the same way it always is (despite their political leanings, the Supremes DO discuss cases with each other, and tend to stick to the letter of the law and Constitution).

So all this election did was to weaken the fight against Net Neutrality and make certain that nothing gets done in our government for the next two years. All the Republicans managed to do was create total gridlock.

And how do you think people will vote in two years after we gave the Republicans "another chance" and they fail to do anything?

Yep.
 
2010-11-06 11:23:28 AM  
Phil Herup: Anything Joe Sestak is for I have to be against.


He is a massive douche.


Wow, I'm glad you put your entire intellectual thought process behind it to come to reasoned well formed opinion. You're such a useless bag of shiat.
 
2010-11-06 11:24:30 AM  
jbuist: FWIW I'm against Net Neutrality too.

Me too.

I also think GM should make cars that drive extra slow when you attempt to drive someplace that hasn't paid money to GM.
 
2010-11-06 11:25:01 AM  
sweetmelissa31: I just looked up a Slashdot thread on this exact topic, and it doesn't look any more informed than a typical Fark thread.

Slashdot is an even worse cesspit than Fark frankly.
 
2010-11-06 11:25:24 AM  
heinekenftw: For 29.99, you get cable for ALL websites equally.

Assuming, of course, that the source website you are looking at has the same server speed, same internet connection, and is located in a geographically similar place. There is a reason that Fark loads quickly while Michael Blount's Geocities page takes a good 30-40 seconds.
 
2010-11-06 11:27:13 AM  
Shaggy_C: Assuming, of course, that the source website you are looking at has the same server speed, same internet connection, and is located in a geographically similar place. There is a reason that Fark loads quickly while Michael Blount's Geocities page takes a good 30-40 seconds.

YOUR connection is the same for all websites.

Everybody else's connections vary for a whole host of reasons.

For $29.99 and cable, you shouldn't have to pay extra for various connections based on content, on your end.
 
2010-11-06 11:27:37 AM  
Shaggy_C: bulldg4life: Then, if I really want to spurge and get the premium internet, I'll be able to view Youtube and play Counterstrike with less lag.

Sort of like the difference between shelling out $9.95 for 56k, 19.99 for DSL, or 29.99 for cable?


Except that in his comparison, the content is walled off and one pays for access through the unnatural monopoly of telecoms. In your example, one pays for better connectivity through increasing technology, but access to the entire internet (at reduced loading capacity).

Other than missing the entire point, you hit the nail on the head
 
2010-11-06 11:28:34 AM  
jbuist: Why shouldn't I be allowed to pay an extra $5 to have my VoIP traffic to Vonage given a higher priority on my cable company's network?

This has nothing to do with net neutrality.

jbuist: .

If we want to prevent ISPs from being able to abuse their customers I believe the best way to go about that is to force them to open up their lines to competition, not let Senator TubesNoTruck dictate their terms of service.


This also has nothing to do with net neutrality. No terms of service will be dictated to ISPs.

You appear to be against net neutrality solely based on a misunderstanding of what net neutrality actually is.
 
2010-11-06 11:29:42 AM  
Auto432: Goddamn progressives go to use for change that does. Eventually the entire country as goes to change will wrap around somewhere. Progressives wish even more certain as to want for hope that 1864 peace.

Its Cyclical.



i17.photobucket.comi17.photobucket.comi17.photobucket.comi17.photobucket.com
 
2010-11-06 11:30:30 AM  
jbuist: John Paul Jones: You think all that is a good idea?

I don't think it's a good idea for ISPs to wholesale block traffic to some areas of the 'net. I don't think it's in the best interest of their customers and I don't think it's good for their business either.

But, barring further increases in total available bandwidth traffic, which are certainly possible, traffic shaping may be the only way for us to continue receiving the quality of services that we're already used to.

Hell, I do this in my own house.


Dear Jbuist,

Thank you for introducing an actual discussion of 'net neutrality' and its pros and cons, over one-sided 'my side is right, their side is wrong' final statements.
 
2010-11-06 11:30:40 AM  
bulldg4life: For $29.99 and cable, you shouldn't have to pay extra for various connections based on content, on your end.

So what is your opinion of a subscription-based service like Total Fark? Isn't that paying extra for additional content?
 
2010-11-06 11:31:33 AM  
ExperianScaresCthulhu: Thank you for introducing an actual discussion of 'net neutrality' and its pros and cons

But he got most of the pros and cons wrong.

He introduced a few things that sound nice, but really don't have anything to do with net neutrality.

He shouldn't get credit just because his argument sounds nice.
 
2010-11-06 11:32:45 AM  
Shaggy_C: Fox basically blocked any Cablevision user from accessing any of their websites, including Hulu. Do you see that as a gross violation of net neutrality?

As I understand the issue Fox blocked Cablevision users from Fox TV content via Hulu during a contract dispute when Cablevision was blocking Fox TV content on cable TV. This was purely about TV content.

What Fox and Hulu agree to about displaying content is purely up to them. I dont see this as anything to do with net neutrality.
 
2010-11-06 11:33:48 AM  
I'll just leave this here:

Link (new window)
 
2010-11-06 11:34:06 AM  
Shaggy_C: So what is your opinion of a subscription-based service like Total Fark? Isn't that paying extra for additional content?

How is buying additional content from a company the same as having to pay your ISP for additional content that is, otherwise, freely accessible?

You are conflating different ideas in an attempt to make them analogous to net neutrality.

Are you doing that on purpose or do you feel you are making solid counter-arguments?
 
2010-11-06 11:34:59 AM  
scseth: What Fox and Hulu agree to about displaying content is purely up to them. I dont see this as anything to do with net neutrality.

So a content provider deciding to blackmail an ISP for not putting up sufficient money towards their content is OK, but if an ISP wants to do the same and provide premium access based on a content provider's money, it's the end of the internet as we know it.
 
2010-11-06 11:36:15 AM  
ExperianScaresCthulhu: jbuist: John Paul Jones: You think all that is a good idea?

I don't think it's a good idea for ISPs to wholesale block traffic to some areas of the 'net. I don't think it's in the best interest of their customers and I don't think it's good for their business either.

But, barring further increases in total available bandwidth traffic, which are certainly possible, traffic shaping may be the only way for us to continue receiving the quality of services that we're already used to.

Hell, I do this in my own house.

Dear Jbuist,

Thank you for introducing an actual discussion of 'net neutrality' and its pros and cons, over one-sided 'my side is right, their side is wrong' final statements.


too bad he doesn't understand what net neutrality is about.
 
2010-11-06 11:39:25 AM  
bulldg4life: How is buying additional content from a company the same as having to pay your ISP for additional content that is, otherwise, freely accessible?

Do you think people are incapable of moving to another ISP if they do not like the policies of the one they are currently using? I guess what I'm trying to get to is that there are many layers of content filtering occurring at all levels. Arbitrarily pointing out one level - that of the ISP - while ignoring others, primarily the content providers themselves, or even closer to home, your local network operator - seems a little bit strange to me.
 
2010-11-06 11:40:12 AM  
Shaggy_C: So a content provider deciding to blackmail an ISP for not putting up sufficient money towards their content is OK

Again, that was not the issue. The issue was over TV contracts.

However, Ill play along. A content provider is free to do whatever they want with their content including not placing their content on the Internet.

If I put up a website tomorrow and decide I hate IE users and will block all IE users but allow Firefox, Chrome, and Opera users, thats my right.

If I put up a website tomorrow and block all access to anyone from .cn because Im worried about hackers, thats my right.

These are not net neutrality issues.
 
2010-11-06 11:43:28 AM  
jbuist: Show us your Marx: How come?

/serious question

Because there are perfectly legitimate reasons to change the priority of network traffic based on the contents or route of it. The simple fact that we're not already seeing this, when the technology has existed for years, is a source of amazement for me. I'm of the opinion, based on what I've heard from other techs, is that ISPs aren't doing it right now because they're lazy.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to pay an extra $5 to have my VoIP traffic to Vonage given a higher priority on my cable company's network? Or maybe a small premium to get better service to XBOX Live? I do all of these things on my home network and think it'd be great if that high priority would be carried along the chain. Hell, give me a discount if I agree that non-standard (ie: BitTorrent) traffic can take low priority.

Likewise why shouldn't content distributors be able to pay more for better priority? If the tubes get clogged up, and Google's reserved the #1 priority spot, well, they still get the traffic that can fit through. Everybody else gets backlogged until the pipe clears.

Or, in the event of some kind of disaster, where network services are severely interrupted should the ISPs be able to change priority in the fly? What happens when there's another 9/11 type event and everybody's mashing refresh to see what's on CNN? Or streaming video coverage of the events? Should the ISP not be allowed to shut down BitTorrent traffic to help clear things up for what they deem to be the most likely important service to the majority of their customers? Why not throttle back video services at a time like that to make sure there's still room for basic communication like email, IM, and VoIP?



Here's what is actually going to happen: ISP's will start cutting access to anything that doesn't directly benefit them. It will become pretty apparent that the internet you are able to view, is entirely dependent on what ISP you have. If you think these companies won't abuse the hell out of it, you're sadly mistaken.
 
2010-11-06 11:44:20 AM  
Shaggy_C: Do you think people are incapable of moving to another ISP if they do not like the policies of the one they are currently using?

In many cases, yes.

The idea that there are countless options available to all customers is the continuing failure of the "free market".

For example, I have two choices for internet access at my apartment. That's it.

If both companies go down a path that I am unhappy with, I get to choose between going without internet access or moving. Outstanding.

Shaggy_C: Arbitrarily pointing out one level - that of the ISP - while ignoring others, primarily the content providers themselves

You bring up an issue that has to deal with content providers blocking content and wonder why people are focusing on ISPs are blocking content in a net neutrality thread?

ok doke...
 
2010-11-06 11:46:04 AM  
Shaggy_C: bulldg4life: How is buying additional content from a company the same as having to pay your ISP for additional content that is, otherwise, freely accessible?

Do you think people are incapable of moving to another ISP if they do not like the policies of the one they are currently using? I guess what I'm trying to get to is that there are many layers of content filtering occurring at all levels. Arbitrarily pointing out one level - that of the ISP - while ignoring others, primarily the content providers themselves, or even closer to home, your local network operator - seems a little bit strange to me.


No it's not strange at all. I'm not sure about you, but I don't have a whole lot of choices about which ISP to pick. It'e either a cable provider or a telephone company, both of which have monopolies in their respective markets. They're utility companies.

Do you think it would be reasonable for the power company to charge you different rates on electricity based on what brand of appliances you have?
 
2010-11-06 11:46:07 AM  
Also, the barriers placed in front of competing ventures is laughable. Another reason that the whole ISP/internet thing fails in the "free market" sense.

I mean, sure...I have the millions of dollars to put up the infrastructure to start my own ISP, but I'm just lazy.
 
2010-11-06 11:46:20 AM  
It is clear that this candidates did not lose based on their views on net neutrality. Indeed, that was hardly on the radar on most campaigns, especially when topic numero uno was the economy. These candidates did not lose due to their views on net neutrality, but rather because they were directly opposed to how most people saw how the economy should be dealt with. Their views on the stimulus bill and health care were what lost those elections.

That being said, I'm not shedding any tears over having less politicians in support of net neutrality. Who actually thinks that giving government control of the internet will make it freer? The government hinders First Amendment rights more often than helping.
 
2010-11-06 11:47:10 AM  
In a basic nut shell for you right wing media universe dwellers it comes down to this...

Freedom for you and me VS freedom for large telecommunications corporations to screw you and me.

I don't know about you but the internet is fine the way it is. Allowing corporations to change it just to suit their bottom lines at the expense of their customers is not something I support.
If your against Net Neutrality you better stock up on the anal lube because you and your wallet are going to need it.
 
2010-11-06 11:47:11 AM  
Shaggy_C: bulldg4life: For $29.99 and cable, you shouldn't have to pay extra for various connections based on content, on your end.

So what is your opinion of a subscription-based service like Total Fark? Isn't that paying extra for additional content?


This has nothing to do with net neutrality. If a content provider wants to charge you more for more content they can. That is a totally separate issue.

Say you pay $5 for totalfark, but your ISP decides that totalfark isn't on it's approved list of content providers that have paid them a fee that they decided to demand from providers. So you pay for $5 for totalfark, but your ISP says, "Sorry, if you want to visit that site you have to pay an extra $10 for our upgraded plan".

Are you okay with the middleman basically extorting the provider and/or the user for extra money just because they can? Or do you think your ISP should just provide the bandwidth you pay for regardless of what you want to use it for and not monitor your activity to prevent you from going to sites they don't like or want you to pay extra for?

Would you be okay with a company paying ISPs to slow down or prevent traffic to competitor's sites? Say I'm a huge internet based service, a small start up with much better features is gaining adoption and thus threatening my business. Since they are a start up they don't have the sheer amount of cash on hand I have, so I just basically bribe some of the Tier 1 providers to severely slow traffic to my competitor making they site essentially unusable. Problem solved. Small start up with much better features goes out of business because I've prevented them fair and unfettered access to the medium over which it operates.

Say a huge company like MS sees a site like Fark and they want to move in on their business. They create a crappy copy and instead of the two services competing on their merits, MS with its huge wad of cash deals with the ISPs to make Fark practically inaccessible so people will have to use MS's knock off site instead.
 
2010-11-06 11:47:23 AM  
Weaver95: Remember guys...you voted for this. own it.

Dream on. A neo-con taking responsibility for shiatting in their own bed is as rare as a virgin birth.
 
2010-11-06 11:47:23 AM  
sluck604: Do you think it would be reasonable for the power company to charge you different rates on electricity based on what brand of appliances you have?

Wait til the electric companies start throttling your electricity because you own an LG projection TV.

F*ck Korea. Buy American.
 
2010-11-06 11:47:36 AM  
I guess some people just miss the days of AOL.

I don't know what else can possibly be going through these peoples heads.
 
2010-11-06 11:48:12 AM  
06Wahoo: Who actually thinks that giving government control of the internet will make it freer?

Do you like the Internet access you have now?
 
2010-11-06 11:48:18 AM  
Shaggy_C: bulldg4life: For $29.99 and cable, you shouldn't have to pay extra for various connections based on content, on your end.

So what is your opinion of a subscription-based service like Total Fark? Isn't that paying extra for additional content?


Yes, you're paying the Content Suppliers for their content. You're buying more of their produce. That has nothing to do with the possibility of having to pay the ISPs in order to get them to allow you to look at Fark in the first place. If he ISP charged you $5 to even look at fark, do you think Fark would stop charging for Total fark too?

Plus, if, for some reason, a rich third party (say reddit) paid your ISP to block Fark, because it didn't want competition, would you like a say in that? What if the RIAA decided that a site that allowed bands to upload their own songs was bad for it's business, and paid ISPs to ban you from those sites?
 
2010-11-06 11:48:44 AM  
06Wahoo: It is clear that this candidates did not lose based on their views on net neutrality. Indeed, that was hardly on the radar on most campaigns, especially when topic numero uno was the economy. These candidates did not lose due to their views on net neutrality, but rather because they were directly opposed to how most people saw how the economy should be dealt with. Their views on the stimulus bill and health care were what lost those elections.

That being said, I'm not shedding any tears over having less politicians in support of net neutrality. Who actually thinks that giving government control of the internet will make it freer? The government hinders First Amendment rights more often than helping.


I'd rather have the government safeguarding open and fair access to content than the telecom companies in charge of restricting content.
 
2010-11-06 11:49:13 AM  
scseth: These are not net neutrality issues.

So let's recap, taking 4 examples:

1) Google blocks users from Comcast from accessing their sites

2) Google offers a tiered system which delivers content to Verizon faster than to other ISPs because Verizon pay a fee

3) The network administrator at the local university blocks users from accessing Google's sites entirely

4) Comcast offers a tiered system which delivers Google data faster to their customers because Google pays a fee

In all cases, the end consumer is going to have issues with getting to content. Either it is slowed down or blocked entirely. But the only place that this is an issue causing such alarm is in case #4. Why?
 
2010-11-06 11:49:35 AM  
06Wahoo: That being said, I'm not shedding any tears over having less politicians in support of net neutrality. Who actually thinks that giving government control of the internet will make it freer? The government hinders First Amendment rights more often than helping.

Giant, monolithic faceless government = bad
Giant, monolithic faceless corporation = good
 
2010-11-06 11:50:40 AM  
bulldg4life: 06Wahoo: That being said, I'm not shedding any tears over having less politicians in support of net neutrality. Who actually thinks that giving government control of the internet will make it freer? The government hinders First Amendment rights more often than helping.

Giant, monolithic faceless government = bad
Giant, monolithic faceless corporation = good


This is what conservatives ACTUALLY believe.
 
2010-11-06 11:53:42 AM  
maddermaxx:
What if the RIAA decided that a site that allowed bands to upload their own songs was bad for it's business, and paid ISPs to ban you from those sites?

"What if"? The minute (god help us) that Net Neutrality falls, the RIAA will be looking into that plan. Actually, they've probably already looked into it, and have agreements drafted with the ISP's to make it happen as soon as it is legal.
 
2010-11-06 11:54:55 AM  
06Wahoo: It is clear that this candidates did not lose based on their views on net neutrality. Indeed, that was hardly on the radar on most campaigns, especially when topic numero uno was the economy. These candidates did not lose due to their views on net neutrality, but rather because they were directly opposed to how most people saw how the economy should be dealt with. Their views on the stimulus bill and health care were what lost those elections.

That being said, I'm not shedding any tears over having less politicians in support of net neutrality. Who actually thinks that giving government control of the internet will make it freer? The government hinders First Amendment rights more often than helping.


Sooooo, the FCC's attempt to preserve the Internet as it stands today is government control?

Aaaand, giving Comcast, AT&T and CableVision the ability to block websites is freedoms.

/You know how I know you never read Orwell?
 
2010-11-06 11:58:13 AM  
bulldg4life: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Thank you for introducing an actual discussion of 'net neutrality' and its pros and cons

But he got most of the pros and cons wrong.

He introduced a few things that sound nice, but really don't have anything to do with net neutrality.

He shouldn't get credit just because his argument sounds nice.


I don't know anything about Net Neutrality. All I know is that the thread was headed in the 'left wing good, right wing baa-aa-aad' sheep bleating direction until JBuist. I can't learn anything from that. It's possible to learn from the direction JBuist and those willing to engage with him turned this thread. That's all.
 
Displayed 50 of 233 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report