sprawl15: thanks obama
sharphead: It's beautiful for the ISPs - they don't get targeted and they can charge anyone whatever they want, without increasing rates for their own customers. Business greed strikes again - always out for 100% control so they can monetize it.
qorkfiend: The industry insider that heads the FCC sides with the industry? No way!
sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obamaFrom the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.
gweilo8888: ikanreed: Digging up cables of companies that do this?Will just cause cable companies to raise costs, and you to spend even more on Internet access and web services than you already will.
ikanreed: Digging up cables of companies that do this?
IgG4: From the TFA: "The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion. But the enactment of final rules faces significant challenges."This is just the first step in the process. No need to freak out. Yet.
meat0918: We got 110W and 220W to peoples homes during the Great Depression, why aren't we getting 30Mbps to them now?
Deftoons: I am fine with this. Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more. I don't feel entitled to it.
The Homer Tax: mod3072: So the Obama-appointed telecom industry shills voted to protect telecom profits at the expense of the consumer and free expression?? I blame Republicans. DAMN YOU, REPUBLICANS!!!Are the republicans using their house majority to draft new legislation preventing companies from doing this? The regulatory powers of the regulatory bodies are determined by the laws enacted by the legislature. What are the republicans doing with their house majority to stop this?Oh, having another Benghazi investigation? Awesome.
farkingatwork: clkeagle: Coming soon:[geekometry.com image 520x245]Or more realistically:[images.huffingtonpost.com image 501x588]It's way more simple.Take your current internet price, multiple it by 3, and that's what you're going to have to pay for what bare minimum shiat you get today. Enjoy!
Lord_Baull: I don't see how this won't hurt website revenues. Can anyone explain the end game here?
Farking Canuck: Keep voting in republicans giving your money to Reed Hastings. That's the way to protect the little guy.
Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.
sendtodave: qorkfiend: Speaking personally, it would be great if the mobile video startup I work for didn't have to pay through the nose to the service providers in order to get our product off the ground.Hmm.Given the option, if google had offered you a job, and this startup had offered you one at the same time, which would you pick?Or, if google bought this startup, would you go work there?What is so innovative about the startup that google can't do teh same thing?I mean, sure, it's romantic, but most startups aren't genius tinkerers in the garage with a game changing idea.And the ones that are? Drop out of Harvard and get millions in seed money.I think you were are getting more game-changers out of google then myfacebutts kids in garages.
sendtodave: How is net neutrality beneficial to you?Personally, I mean.Unless you are another Harvard dropout with millions in seed money, why do you care?
OnlyM3: ox45tallboy [TotalFark]>>> OnlyM3: The three dims supported killing Net-Neutrality. It's right there in subby's link.The Republicans do not support the derp derp derp derp derp derp ...Would you prefer that?Would I prefer the Net Neutrality rules that existed under bush? Why yes, I would prefer that.Can we keep those rules w/o that idiot though?You obama-bots are amusing. Obama appoints a committee that kills Net Neutrality and all you can do is derp bu bu but republicans...
sendtodave: dr_blasto: sendtodave: RickN99: 3 Democrats vote to pass theses rules and the first 150 comments are full of how evil the Republicans are for allowing this to happen.I love Fark.Also, the Internet should be free. As in beer.And Netflix and google are scrappy underdogs.Netflix and Google were scrappy underdogs. The previously wide-open internet allowed a couple clowns in their garage to become the powerhouse Google is today.Get rid of neutrality and there'll be no more of that. Nothing but white-bread, gluten-free sandwiches for everyone.You mean, companies like Netflix, or Google.
Cpl.D: Domestic spying pisses me off. Sabotaging datacenters? That's a new one to me. You got a source?
Lamberts Ho Man: make me some tea: Lamberts Ho Man: I just don't trust that google, zuckerburg, etc. really have our best interest at heart either.Google and Facebook are beholden to their shareholders. Nothing else. Whenever a company goes IPO it inherently becomes evil. It has no choice but to do so, and even if the founders are still at the helm, their personal opinions are trumped by shareholder interests.I'm kind of surprised that they're making public noise for net neutrality - it must just be for the PR benefit. As the established players, who can afford to pay for "fast lane" treatment (hate that term) they stand to benefit. Screwing startups etc., would serve to cement their current position. Netflix already realized this.
gweilo8888: ikanreed: Digging up cables of companies that do this?Will just cause cable companies to raise costs, and you to spend even more on Internet access and web services than you already will.Boycotts?Don't work and never have.Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?Will buy the lawyers a nice Ferrari or three, while you'll get three dollars off your next month's bill if you agree that the cable company did no wrong and can repeat the behavior. (And you'll also have to rub your tummy and pat your head at the same time to get them to send the check, which you'll have to wait six months for. And its costs will be covered with a five-dollar-a-month-in-perpetuity hike in the cost of your cable bill.)The only answer here is to vote out the morons who put these morons in office, and any morons who think even slightly like they do, and continue to do so for decades, and pray that the people you vote in are less dishonest.
ikanreed: Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?
ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.Digging up cables of companies that do this? Boycotts? Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?
ox45tallboy: Okay, I understand where you're coming from. But what other work experience might someone have and still be able to grasp such technical concepts as "traffic shaping" and "peerage agreement"?
ox45tallboy: Wow, I know you want to be enraged, but I'm not seeing what there is to be enraged about here.
UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: This guy Wheeler has to go. He's not doing the people's bidding. He may even think he's honest, but he's in the industry's pocket whether he realizes it or not.
bhcompy: No, Republicans are evil and Democrats are good. Get with the narrative
muck4doo: No, this is the big government that you asked for.
muck4doo: You ignored what I said about an Oligarchy. Who the fark do you think enables that?
LordJiro: It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
MadHatter500: If you think it is so cheap to run a broadband network, and the carriers are rolling in so much stolen money and gouge their customers, why haven't you started a competing carrier? Should be easy, shouldn't it? Please, proceed - I'm absolutely certain the existing carriers would love another voice biatching to the local boards of public utility about how farking expensive it is to deal with the god damn public right of ways. And the home owners associations that will not allow new trenches to be dug for new fiber, and sure as hell won't allow utility poles. Nope - none of that costs farking money and the greedy carriers just hog it all. No drunk driver ever crashes into those poles and disrupts service, no backhoe installing a new storm drain ever digs up buried cable. No lightning strike ever blows out remote terminal equipment. All you have to do is install it once and it never fails again, and every new feature that comes out will work on any piece of equipment ever deployed. Carriers never pay for service contracts on all that gear - the vendors give updates for free. And clearly the damn electricity to run and cool all that equipment is free too. No property taxes ever get levied against a central office! Oh no it's all god damn free!You are so ignorant of reality you deserve to think you've been ripped off. Enjoy your misery.
BullBearMS: The three Democrats he put in charge have refused to reverse the decision the Bush nominees took, despite Obama damning that decision and campaigning against it.You've spent the whole tread defending this refusal and broken promise.Why was it only bad when you could blame it on Bush?
Triple Oak: Media confusion. All I'm seeing is "Three Democrats voted to restrict Neutrality", and very little about Republicans voting to do away with Neutrality all together. It's all appearing as a ruse to anger the low-information voters into a froth, as it is with many other topics that can turn political. It takes only a modicum of research or conversation to see the truth.
BullBearMS: qorkfiend: My god, man. Do you even listen to yourself, or think about anything other than "This is what I want to happen, and if it doesn't happen right now, it's completely worthless"?Yes. When Obama betrays the base and sells us out to his wealthy masters, it's a great victory.If only you could get a few more politics tab guys in here, I'm sure you could make us all believe it.
ox45tallboy: Dude, I'm in favor of regulating the ISP's. So are the Democrats. That's why I'm supporting them here.
BullBearMS: Surely it's entirely coincidental that Netflix customers paying Comcast for service saw their speeds for that one service plummet right after the courts ruled that the FCC couldn't impose restrictions until after they reclassified ISP's as common carriers./That's a nice competing video service you have there.//It would be a shame if anything happened to it
Lamberts Ho Man: MadHatter500: Lamberts Ho Man: Nobody is suggesting that you treat a single family home exactly the way you treat a 500 person corporate building. The latter requires much larger bandwidth and a very different SLA - and they appropriately pay a very different rate for that. Net Neutrality does not impact that in the slightest. To claim otherwise is such a gross misunderstanding of net neutrality that I'm trying hard to decide between troll or shill (cue the "Why Not Both" image)Actually, that's exactly what they are suggesting. You should read the more vociferous net neutrality proponents more carefully.I'm very interested in that claim - can you provide a reference to somebody that matters on this issue stating that net neutrality means that a 500 person corporate office building should pay the same for their internet connection as a single family home? Not that exact claim of course, I assume you made that up. But something like that - that an internet should be unmetered, flat rate, for everybody. Because that seems to be the concept that you're ascribing to net neutraility with that analogy.I have read your posts on peering agreements, and asymmetric traffic with interest. I know this isn't a black or white issue and has got to be far more complicated then the headlines from either side portray. I just think there's got to be a better way to do this then abandoning the de facto net neutrality that has been in existance.
ox45tallboy: Netflix volunteered to help pay for infrastructure improvements at one ISP, Comcast, to ensure that their content was able to be delivered to Comcast customers in an efficient manner. This was not demanded of Netflix, they chose to do so.
BullBearMS: Bullshiat.If they want to make ISP's public utilities, all they have to do is vote to do so.It doesn't require new laws.It doesn't require comments.It's all been on the books for decades.All they have to do is vote to do it.There is a simple fix for this mess. It does not require any new laws from Congress. It already has the support of the Supreme Court.If the FCC actually wants to ensure net neutrality, it will have do something that every regulator in every other developed country did a long time ago. (It will also turn Verizon litigiously apoplectic.) It has to unmake the mistake it made in 2002, when it failed to classify cable Internet providers as telecommunications services. Doing so would solve everything.
ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: This was a concrete step in the opposite direction.This was, in fact, a concrete step in favor of the classification of ISP's as public utilities, something the Republicans are adamantly against. You should be very happy.
BullBearMS: This was a concrete step in the opposite direction.
BullBearMS: This vote had nothing to do with reclassifying internet service providers in a way that would force them to obey long standing common carrier provisions.
ox45tallboy: Republicans want no regulation. Democrats want regulation
pippi longstocking: How about banana? How about lamp? Let's call them that too. You know what the evil farks at comcast and timewarner are actually trying to do and yet you support them.
sendtodave: Would more regulation cause innovation and investment to collapse? Because it seems that the argument against letting them do whatever what they want is that it would cause innovation and investment to collapse.Do we assume that little guys are more innovative than providers?
qorkfiend: Triple Oak: BullBearMS: how retarded do you politics tab party shills think people areI think you and the other trolls shills are very retarded. You arguing the Republican points of unregulated ISPs proves my point.I think he's actually arguing that a) the Democratic commissioners are as industry-friendly as the GOP commissioners, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that we got an industry-friendly proposal and b) the current proposal doesn't go far enough towards ensuring a neutral network.
qorkfiend: You do realize this post addresses none of the questions ox45tallboy asked, right?
mr lawson: ox45tallboy: You did read the article, right?FTFA: One proposal that consumer groups applauded was on the open question of whether the government should redefine broadband Internet as a public utility, like phone service, which would come with much more oversight from the FCC.And then they ACTUALLY VOTED AND APPROVED (not just considered mine you) To advance the tiered plan to the next step.Basically they just gave lip service to net neutrality.
BullBearMS: What in the hell are you talking about? Classifying them as a utility is what allows you to impose common carrier restrictions on them. That's how the long standing law on the matter works.The same restrictions that have always applied to phone companies, electric companies, gas companies, airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxi companies, cruise ships, trucking companies and other freight companies.
BullBearMS: Also, you don't need a debate to classify them as utilities. You just need the three Democrats on the FCC to vote to do it.
pippi longstocking: Well unless you can clarify how any website is going to reach me without an ISP then you can go ahead and put that in the common carrier group.
mr lawson: and yet...that is what was just proposed by the fcc. That is not speculation. It Happened.I don't doubt you are for N.N. we all are. (well except for a few fringe).
BullBearMS: The problem is that there is a simple way to make the Internet Service Providers subject to network neutrality regulations. You simply need three votes to classify them as a utility subject to common carrier restrictions in the same way phone companies already are.
happydude45: USA Prime Credit Peggy: *sigh*Oxtallboy doing the lord's work in here. Must be exhausting replying to all these paid republican shills.He's parroting liberal bullshiat to people who point out facts and truth. Typical
BullBearMS: An overt lie.All the commission has to do is classify internet service providers as falling under the existing rules that currently apply to phone companies, electric companies, gas companies, airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxi companies, cruise ships, trucking companies and other freight companies.Once three commissioners vote to classify them as a common carrier, they can no longer interfere in customer choice.
alice_600: Someguy72: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.The problem with your rhetoric against Republicans is it is Democrats who are the majority in current FCC. Please stop your biased hatred when you don't know what you are talking about. It's also Republicans in Congress who were denouncing this move this morning.And the problem with your train of thought is that most of these guys in Washington are old farts who aren't in the internet business to begin with. They have other people handle everything internet for them. So quit thinking these guys know what the internet really is capable of doing.
ox45tallboy: Triple Oak: why they didn't vote either way or had one person abstain is beyond meBecause by opening the floor to debate, they've pretty much ensured that they (the FCC) will have jurisdiction to regulate the ISP's.
sendtodave: dr_blasto: paygun: Maybe we should just make the government bigger and give them more power. It worked for healthcare.So far, it has.Regulation is limiting the power of corporations. Perhaps we should have unregulated, unfettered capitalism again since that's always worked out really well.Net neutrality is necessary to reign in capitalism! In order to allow for capitalism!Underdogs don't compete on level playing fields. That's why they're called underdogs. Really, this is just another barrier to entry argument, it seems.And there seems to be an assumption that innovation comes from garages, and not from large scale players like google. Or the government.
Headso: why was this the proposed rule that they voted for and not something that actually benefited the consumer? I agree with the last part of your post that people should write their elected officials but I'd also add that people should make this as embarrassing for the democrats as a whole as possible because shaming them in the court of public opinion is just as good if not better than some letter an intern will "read" and then throw in the trash.
BullBearMS: So Obama appointing an industry lobbyist to be in charge of regulating that industry is really a victory for all of us!Especially when the three Democrats he put in charge do the exact opposite of what he promised over, and over, and over.
BullBearMS: jso2897: BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: You do realize you just posted a letter proving exactly what I'm saying? That the Republicans oppose any and all regulation of the ISP's by the FCC, and they (the ISP's) should be free to tier their networks however they want (and charge content providers for priority service)?Well, thank goodness we elected the liar who said he was opposed to that!We certainly shouldn't hold them responsible for lying to us!You're right - we should punish them by voting for people who openly boast of being even worse.So at least they lie to us, before they sell us out?
OnlyM3: You'll have to talk longer and louder to change those stubborn facts.
OnlyM3: You'll need to lie longer and harder...[www.upl.co image 736x952][www.upl.co image 736x952]
BullBearMS: Holy shiat. Obama promises to only appoint FCC commissioners who will take a stand for network neutrality.He appoints three Democrats to head the FCC who refuse to keep that promise and destroy the concept of network neutrality instead.Therefore, herp, derp, the problem is Republicans.
BullBearMS: Holy shiat. Obama promises to only appoint FCC commissioners who will take a stand for network neutrality.He appoints three Democrats to head the FCC who refuse to keep that promise and destroy the concept of network neutrality instead.Therefore, herp, derp, the problem is Republicans.
Headso: This is true and instead of farking apologizing for them and blaming republicans the real solution is to shiat on democrats in this case as they so rightly deserve. The democrats deserve as much shiat as they can get for this, it's an embarrassment.
sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I want full net neutrality. I want ISPs to be forced to treat a byte of data like a byte of data. For data to be treated like electricity, gas, or water.Oh! I get it! "Neutral" is code for "highly regulated!"I thought it alluded to freedom.
COMALite J: snocone: Walker: Un-f*cking-believable.The entire country and both Democrats AND Republicans were against this, and it still gets passed. So much for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's for corporations....and has been for a while.Is and always has been, Government In Spite of The People."Corporations are people, my friend."
ox45tallboy [TotalFark]The Republicans do not support the FCC having this authority at all. In other words, under Republican control there would be no public comment period or regulatory oversight, there would be the ISP's doing whatever they want with absolutely no regulation at all.Would you prefer that?
ox45tallboy [TotalFark]>>> OnlyM3: You hoped for change... you got it.Republicans oppose this because they don't want any regulation of the ISP's at all. If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.The idea that Republicans support regulations which would prevent the ISP's from doing this is simply not true
Cpl.D: Personally, I'd rather see internet access be regulated like a utility.
jshine: You mean like the 8 years when Bush II controlled the FCC?/ I hated the guy for other reasons, but at least he didn't fark with the internet
Nadie_AZ: dr_blasto: Nadie_AZ: Deftoons: I am fine with this. Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more. I don't feel entitled to it.The thing is you will pay more keep your current speeds. Or slower.No.Your existing service is likely to remain unchanged. You will just end up paying a lot more for some content or that content will become unbearably slow so as to devalue it entirely. Strangely, whatever terribly boring stuff NBC produces will alway be of very high quality with little delay.Ah yes. Sorry.So Netflix will be tiered for speed and NBCflix will be cheaper and faster?
OnlyM3: Sorry, your hero Goebbels is dead. No matter how often or loudly you tell your lies, the fact is the Democrat fundraiser appointed by obama(D) and confirmed by the Democrat controlled senate pushed to kill Net Neutrality and the two other democrats on the committee voted with him.They were opposed by the only 2 Republicans on the committee.//Net neutrality survived bush, but won't survive obama.
mr lawson: ox45tallboy: The Republicans voted against it because they don't think the FCC, or anyone for that matter, should have the ability to regulate ISP's and enforce any kind of net neutrality rules.citation needed
jshine: ox45tallboy: If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.You mean like the 8 years when Bush II controlled the FCC?/ I hated the guy for other reasons, but at least he didn't fark with the internet
mr lawson: citation needed
delciotto: If external data does get slowed, I can see a lot of other countries getting really pissed off at the states real fast.
OnlyM3: You hoped for change... you got it.
xanadian: Aren't the ISPs making enough cash from the tiered Internet plans
sdd2000>>> sprawl15: thanks obamaFrom the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.
Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes
untaken_name: How strange. 3 democrats voted to give the internet to big business. What a shocker.
Smeggy Smurf: You assholes keep voting for the fascists. Enjoy the results.
Biff_Steel: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: This country in no way resembles the nation of my youth.[img.fark.net image 600x865]
medius: I will not jerk off to dial up speeds again!
papatex: Surprisingly all 3 democrats voted for it, both republicans against it.It's a mad mad world.
mr lawson: Ted Cruz bill would ban 'FCC's latest adventure in net neutrality'Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wants Congress to ban "the FCC's latest adventure in 'net neutrality,' " saying the proposed changes to Internet regulations would damage the industry."A five-member panel at the FCC should not be dictating how Internet services will be provided to millions of Americans," Cruz said in a Wednesday afternoon statement. "I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission's nebulous Sec. 706 authority. More than $1 trillion has already been invested in broadband infrastructure, which has led to an explosion of new content, applications, and Internet accessibility. Congress, not an unelected commission, should take the lead on modernizing our telecommunications laws. The FCC should not endanger future investments by stifling growth in the online sector, which remains a much-needed bright spot in our struggling economy."
I alone am best: DarkSoulNoHope: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to try to change the rules to keep ISPs from making more and more profit? Especially since most (if not all) of those Republican congressmen/women (Democrats too) are lobbied to support these profits through legislation.Super DERP A++ Would read again.http://washingtonexaminer.co m/ted-cruz-bill-would-ban-fccs-latest-adve nture-in-net-neutrality/article/2548441
Carn: Kneel and bow before your corporate masters, filthy plebs.
snocone: Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.Whatcha all done lately?Riot in Chicago? NO!Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!
Professor Duck: So, how long until we're charged by the Mb for service?
Richard C Stanford: Paris1127: Fark needs to think of some revolutionary slogans for a free internet... Live Stream or Die? The Internet will not be televised? I'm really bad at this...F**k The FCC!You can have my Netflicks when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!Keep the Internet free!
UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.
DarkSoulNoHope: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to try to change the rules to keep ISPs from making more and more profit? Especially since most (if not all) of those Republican congressmen/women (Democrats too) are lobbied to support these profits through legislation.
Wadded Beef: Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled."I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can't allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers.Or you could have voted "no" you spineless twit.
Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Thank FSM that I have enough porn downloaded to last two lifetimes.
Farking Canuck: Keep voting in republicans. That's the way to protect the little guy.
kertus: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.Digging up cables of companies that do this? Boycotts? Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?A class action suit has to be the way to do this. If I contract for 30mb/sec. INTERNET access, then that is what they should deliver.Who am I kidding, we the plebes have lost control. Capital has won the battle.
LeroyB: Wow, I remember the "olde days" when dial-up connections were charged by the minute.Once I went to an "always on" cable-modem almost 15 years ago I never thought I might be going back to that. Hello overage charges.
LeroyBourne: *unloads my 2 terabyte external hard-drive*
Mikey1969: Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers. The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement.Who the fark is "Wheeler"? The word appears once on the page, right in the quote I posted above. Do they even require an 8th grade education to write for the Washington Post, or can my dog get a job there?
medius: I will not jerk off to dial up speeds again!/my cold dead hands
bighairyguy: Oh, and you now have to pay internet postage for all your emails too.
If you like these links, you'll love
More funny for your money.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 22 2018 22:30:37
Runtime: 1.535 sec