10/10 photoshop skills. Would click again.
Does anyone have a better quality version of the unedited original?
But... if you go against what the FCC is trying to do with reclassification, then you’re advocating them keeping ownership. Like, why would you want them to retain ownership and also advocate saying “fuck them”?
"I don't eat babies! With babies it's a little on the lips, a lifetime on the hips. I eat *toddlers*."
Edit: Source - Dr. Jan Itor
My name is Michael J. Caboose, and *I EAT BABIES!*
Should have used the Heavy instead of the soldier since he's from Soviet Russia.
No, we just eat berries and mushrooms but some maniac has been killing us
Gamers are dumb. Just look at how many of you people keep pre-ordering shit games and always get screwed.
What's the Heavy from TF2 doing here?
So the FCC eats babies and thats why we need to put control over internet regulation in their 5 non-elected hands?
Why are people making money off you guaranteed to be bad?
Does McDonald’s intentionally make shitty fries because they make money off of it? No. They make fries that are the best combination of affordable for the company and also attract as many people as possible.
This logic holds true here. Thinking that companies would suddenly say “fuck all of our customers” is stupid. This would just allow them to pass costs along to the heavier data users (Netflix, pornhub etc) instead of how they currently pass it along to us.
When people post all the bullshit “you gotta pay $50 for reddit” shit that is stupid and that wouldn’t ever happen. They would have such an insane negative publicity any company in their right mind would know better. And believe it or not they all have PR departments that do know better and that is what they get paid to do.
So basically what happens WHEN NN is repealed is that instead of us consumers footing the bill for all of the net traffic upkeep they could pass a portion of those expenses along to the websites that are using the most bandwidth. That would allow one of 3 things to happen:
1. Cost savings for consumers since that cost is being shared by the websites. While you might say “that would never happen” if ISPs weren’t concerned with keeping customers happy and getting more customers they would all be charging $10,000 a month for internet. Economics dictate that the relationship between cost and benefit is inverse. They know that the lower they make their cost the more people will sign up for their plans. So I do think a PORTION of their savings would indeed get passed along as discounts or just flat cheaper plans.
2. They would using the extra money to invest in infrastructure. Again, as a company that is interested in attracting more customers to make more money having a better infrastructure and faster service than your competition is one way to do that. I think that a portion of this extra money would be invested back into the company and expanding service. This would also increase competition and eliminate many of the circumstances of only having one option. If the company that is doing it right sees an opportunity to invade a competing market and steal dissatisfied customers they will. This would force a company with bad business practices to either change or lose customers.
3. They would return this extra income to their stockholders as dividends. We seem to forget that these companies are all for profit. They have people that just invest into them to raise the capital to run these multibillion dollar companies. Rewarding shareholders for investing in the company is not a bad thing. This would also make the industry as a whole much more rewarding for investments and hence you would see more companies enter the market (since funding is now ore prevalent due to the better payoffs for investing into the industry). Again, this would have the effect of rewarding companies that give back to their shareholders(more investments in the future). These investments could then be sunk back into the company to help it grow.
Either way, ISPs having more money isn’t a bad thing and pretending they will block or charge extra for sites is just stupid. That cost would be pushed to the originating source, not the end user.
Also, this isn’t taking into account that congress will still be looking at updating our internet regulations. The difference is these regulations should come from our elected officials that we get to vote for. Not some FCC panel appointed by god only knows who.
While I am sure no one will read this, and most of your options can’t be changed, maybe it will shed some light into the other side of the argument.
And do you did read it all thanks. If you didn’t and just downvoted (like I am sure most will) you are part of the problem with America. We should be able to have civil discourse.
Good day my friends.