Hopefully this makes more people consider the fact that we seriously need to nationalize the internet's infrastructure. We already pay for it with taxes, remind me why a private company gets to...
Hopefully this makes more people consider the fact that we seriously need to nationalize the internet's infrastructure. We already pay for it with taxes, remind me why a private company gets to profit off of public infrastructure?
See, that's what really gets to me. Companies like Verizon are trying to block municipal internet from using the infrastructure that was built with tax dollars. Its mind boggling.
See, that's what really gets to me. Companies like Verizon are trying to block municipal internet from using the infrastructure that was built with tax dollars. Its mind boggling.
I feel like someone needs to spray paint the merriam-webster definition of "unlimited" on their corporate headquarters. In all seriousness, I think legally if its called "unlimited" than it should...
I feel like someone needs to spray paint the merriam-webster definition of "unlimited" on their corporate headquarters.
In all seriousness, I think legally if its called "unlimited" than it should be just that. Couldn't they theoretically be sued for some sort of fraud or false advertising otherwise?
Kinda, but not really. This isn't a net neutrality issue. If only connections to some locations were throttled, but say Netlfix was still fast, then that would be a net neutrality issue....
Kinda, but not really. This isn't a net neutrality issue. If only connections to some locations were throttled, but say Netlfix was still fast, then that would be a net neutrality issue. Throttling everything, isn't as it is neutral about what it throttles. It demonstrates that ISPs can be terrible, and that choice is good, but not net neutrality problems.
To clarify, throttling to specific sites/addresses/whatever and not others is an example of lack of net neutrality, because the provider isn't neutral about what destination your packets go to.
To clarify, throttling to specific sites/addresses/whatever and not others is an example of lack of net neutrality, because the provider isn't neutral about what destination your packets go to.
Hopefully this makes more people consider the fact that we seriously need to nationalize the internet's infrastructure. We already pay for it with taxes, remind me why a private company gets to profit off of public infrastructure?
See, that's what really gets to me. Companies like Verizon are trying to block municipal internet from using the infrastructure that was built with tax dollars. Its mind boggling.
What better way to fuck us over than to have us pay for it as well?
Wait so that mix and match unlimited plans add isn't a joke... Holy shit.
I feel like someone needs to spray paint the merriam-webster definition of "unlimited" on their corporate headquarters.
In all seriousness, I think legally if its called "unlimited" than it should be just that. Couldn't they theoretically be sued for some sort of fraud or false advertising otherwise?
That sounds like that Simpsons episode where Homer sues an All-you-can-eat buffet restaurant for throwing him out.
This is an interesting example of how the repeal of Net Neutrality can have a real world effect on public safety.
Kinda, but not really. This isn't a net neutrality issue. If only connections to some locations were throttled, but say Netlfix was still fast, then that would be a net neutrality issue. Throttling everything, isn't as it is neutral about what it throttles. It demonstrates that ISPs can be terrible, and that choice is good, but not net neutrality problems.
Edit: Clarified a little. Thanks @Lynx!
To clarify, throttling to specific sites/addresses/whatever and not others is an example of lack of net neutrality, because the provider isn't neutral about what destination your packets go to.