10/10 photoshop skills. Would click again.
1920's Propaganda is a historical gem
Does anyone have a better quality version of the unedited original?
Hope this works for you
The original one in higher res.
Even better! Thanks!
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”?
The government already has defacto ownership since they regulate the telecom industry. This rule at least keeps the artificial monopoly regulated.
Thank you, how does no one else realize this
A lot of people realize it, but the fcc doesn't care.
The FCC used to care, since that is the purpose of the comission. Currently it is a textbook example of Regulatory Capture.
I'm pretty damn sure it will be the literal textbook example in the future.
We live in interesting times.
"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
what toddlers are MUCH more fatty. only eat gymnasts...much more lean.
You should try eating them once right out of their mother, as that's when they taste the best.
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.
This is from the war update, valve held a contest of demoman vs soldier, whoever killed the other class more would get more items.
Nah it perfectly depicts the American capitalist. Since technically the FCC are using capitalist tactics.
I need more stuff like this
That's a rock fact!
FCC Song - Eric Idle
No, we just eat berries and mushrooms but some maniac has been killing us
Make hose monsters PAI
Oh come on, at least TRY the clone tool ffs
Knew it, those monsters
Gamers are dumb. Just look at how many of you people keep pre-ordering shit games and always get screwed.
needs more jpeg
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?
This logic is mostly correct, assuming a free market. Thing is, certain ISPs clearly have a monopoly for large swathes of your countries population. A monopoly allows them to price gouge the fuck out of you, as the stabilizing factor (competition) isn't an issue.
If McDonald's was your only way to get food, I'm sure you'd be paying more for less.
I’m from a small town. My McDonald’s burger costs the same as any other McDonald’s in my state. Same logic applies here. The areas with competition will sit the pricing and that will bleed over to other areas. The FTC already manages businesses for monopolies and if it becomes evident that a company is taking advantage of a certain area that they have a monopoly in people can easily file a clash action or the DOJ can file a lawsuit over it.
But you can probably buy potatoes and burgers from your grocery store while you can’t set your internet up by just buying some cables at a super market.
It’s completely different markets.
Just look at ea doing. It’s very easy to try to get as much cash as possible through digital markets
You are discounting the value of competition. Companies are encouraged to do what is right because if not their competition will invade the market and steal those customers. 95% of the us population have multiple choices with internet providers. Increase competition and that number will just go up. NN lowers competition and increases the cost of infrastructure making it easier for companies to keep their competitive edge. That is a bad thing for consumers.
So say all those companies can't team up? They can't buy out all potential competing business?
Companies are not encouraged to do anything. They'd rather find ways around it
NN does nothing to lower competition and putting zero locks means zero development. We don't want any companies to have a competitive edge. That creates a monopoly
That would never happen because of anti-trust laws. Also, there are laws established to control fiduciary responsibility. Companies are required to do the best thing for their shareholders. They are also prevented from “teaming” up by law. This is call price fixing etc. that is my point. Why do we need more laws for this? And if we do need a law it should come from congress, not a federal agency we have no oversight on.
You mention Congress. They passed the law authorizing the FCC to regulate as they are now. I'm all for updating that authority, but you seem to ignore the existing chain of law at work in ascribing it to "god only knows who." The FCC took several swings at bat to get these rules in place, got rebuffed on lighter regulations, leaving them no option but the current one. Congress has had lots of time to write new law.
As to the rest, I'm not sure what experience you've had with corporations. My own experience has been full of run arounds, baits-and-switches, anti-competitive behaviors, and so forth. These are the same practices I've observed in the vaunted legislators you now task with fixing this mess. In abiding the principle of charity to your comment, I must assume that either you have lived a charmed life, me a doomed one, or both.
I am not saying that congress will fix it freely. I am saying it is their responsibility to and I would much rather have the power to regulate my internet in my congressman, whom I can vote out’s hand than some idiot that was appointed to the FCC. I assume you don’t like the current FCC chair so you should get that. Having the FCC regulate it is only good when you agree with them. What happens when they do something that you don’t like but you can’t do shit about it?
Also, Congress writing legislation is much more written in stone. The FCC can change course at will. I would much prefer a solid strategy that allows us and businesses to know what the law is and then update it as needed to protect consumers. What happens when the FCC get paid off by Facebook? Nothing we can do. You can always vote out your congressman.
Also, I’ve worked with several large companies over many years and I don’t agree that companies in general are bad. They are trying to make profit. That’s it. NN as it is written today forced them to make that money on other ways and that normally means passing t on to us since they can’t pass it on to others. They are going to make the money they need regardless.
I'm curious, who wrote this. very well organized propaganda. A - when you say things like "Does McDonald’s intentionally make shitty fries because they make money off of it?" Yes- Yes they do. They make the most money off their fries as possible, and they are not good for you are they? Do you think comcast and time warner have not been raping people for years? Who are you and who are you being paid by? I'm sure who ever it is, they have convinced you your outlook is correct, as you have well put a good amount of energy into establishing your argument for ISP control.
I’m just a common Joe that feels that more government control isn’t always the answer to our problems because they won’t hesitate to turn around and fuck you over. At least congress is responsible to me though. The FCC couldn’t give a fuck about you. Why do you think this is being repealed? Because their buddies at google and Facebook want it repealed.
But I did put a bit of thought into my “article” last night and it ended up being longer than I expected. I know you disagree, but thanks for the complement of thinking I am paid off by ISPs.
As a side note, I am not in favor of ISP control. I mean it is their fucking business. They are already in control and if you think the FCC know have the shit they do you are crazy. I am just in favor of as little regulation as possible on it and when we do need a consumer protect law I think it should come from congress so we can actually hold them accountable.
Wow, never saw it in that light. Thank you!
No thank you for reading it. I’m sure I didn’t convince you, and both arguments probably have some truth to them, but just knowing there is another side out there is important.
Thanks for being open minded, not much of that around in this day and time.
Go shill this shit elsewhere. Telecom companies are as bad as they can legally be (and often worse) already, now they can do it selectively with the internet. I hope Comcast is paying you well for this.
Make them pay. The tables have turned.
Yup because every time you give a corporation free reign to exploit people, they just don't do it because they're so nice and want to do the right thing. They especially will just leave a potential gold mine of revenue that they have legal precedence to take when they basically have a monopoly in specific areas of the country. I'm sure that repealing net neutrality will have no negative consequences for the average American using the internet whatsoever. It's just not in a corporations nature to endlessly pursue money and power at any expense. They're basically communists.
I think AOL used to charge an hourly charge back in the 90s. I could be wrong though. Lol
For what it's worth, I oppose repealing net neutrality until our anti trust laws are updated to handle the internet. But this is the worst kind of hyperbole.
This is totally reasonable. I'd also throw in there that ISPs have a lot of power of regulatory agencies as it is because they can lobby in order to get their way. We need to get money our of politics so the people can vote with their dollars.
shhhh there’s no rational thought here were the good guys remember
Wait communism is about doing things for the benefit of the “whole” of society at the expense of the individual... you completely fail to understand the problem with communism...
Companies are capitalist organizations trying to make money for their shareholders. It doesn’t get more capitalistic than that. They make profit by offering a service. If said service is subpar competitors will see an opportunity and take advantage of it. Pretending the internet would be ruined is just stupid. Hey neutrality has only been around for 2 years fool.
My comment was so obviously sarcastic that it's actually painful that I have to explain it. But you're correct about the inner workings of capitalism and how competition will keep other companies in check by making sure they always offer a better deal. At least, you would be correct if Comcast and Time Warner didn't have basic monopolies over large areas of the United States. Competition only works like that if there is actually competition. People who have Comcast often cannot switch to a competitor of they're being treated like shit because they have no one else to go to which is how Comcast can be simultaneously considered one of the worst companies in America and worth billions of dollars.
What the fuck makes you imagine there's any upside to undoing it? I totally get being a contrarian, but this is just too much. We already pay the ISPs for letting us send and receive information. So do the website hosts. Whether we're exchanging photos, streaming music, or watching videos makes no difference whatsoever to ISPs, we already bought our share of bandwidth.
We also have guaranteed impartiality now. Why would you ever want to give that up?
At least with the caveat that this is true if you pay your bills on time, credit card companies charge vendors a lot more per transaction that they do charge you. That's because credit card companies can get more money from vendors to lower prices for customers, which expands their market. If Comcast is allowed to nickel and dime EA, then Comcast can charge you less to access EA's servers in order to get more customers in total. This works because content providers NEED to get access to their customers, while it ISPs raise prices too much, consumers will simply downgrade their plans or give it up all together. So ISPs have more leverage over content providers than they do against residential consumers.
What... the credit card companies charging the stores who accept those cards means the store passes the cost to us. Gas stations still fucking charge more money if you pay with card. When costs to a supplier go up, cost to the customer goes up.
If these stores raising prices from "passing the costs on to the consumer", and revenue goes down as a result because increased price means lower demand, then they will still make less profit by raising prices than they would by not raising prices.
Except when it's a service you need. Gas stations are only recently giving up on charging more for credit transactions but before that it didn't matter, you have to go to a gas station to fill your car up and if you didn't have cash you had no choice. When it comes to internet and you literally have 1 option for service provider wtf do you do then?
God people on here have no concept of economics.
Valiant effort but I feel you are speaking to deaf ears.
Increased price does not equal lower demand in most cases. Price increases because of increasing demand.
But credit cards provide a service to cardholders, credit. And they provide collection services to businesses. They're each paying for a different benefit.
If I'm already paying for my 50 Mbps, and reddit is already paying for its 50 Mbps, what additional service is Comcast providing to either of us?
They can use the increased revenue to improve infrastructure. Do you want to pay for 50mbps forever instead of 5000mbps?
We already PAID for gigabit service.
Did you even read the Forbes article? Infrastructure has historically improved faster in industries without common carrier status. If you want internet infrastructure to stagnate and develop more slowly because that IS the trade off of having NN, then that's ok, but you need to be able to admit that.
That's cool dude, if Comcast and Verizon want to make their own private internet, nobody's going to stop them. Let that one be unregulated. I want the strictly impartial one.
That's going to be an unequivocal YES from me, since the choice is between 50 Mbps of whatever the fuck I want or 5000 Mbps of "Comcast Presents: the Innernette."
Do you really think ISPs aren't going to offer any packages with everything when there's so much demand for it? Like it's going to be your grandma opting in to a lower tier plan for just Facebook and YouTube, it's not going to be the norm.
Of course they would, but that isn't acceptable. I'm already paying for the whole internet. They would have to do deliberate work to limit what I have access to. It's a blatantly artificial scarcity, even if there are parts of the internet I never have any intention of using. It's like if they sold off the children's wing of the public library and started allowing librarians to personally accept fees for letting people in.
It's ok, we're all laughing at you too
Go back to shilling on t_d.
Let's just say I would rather trust the internet to our incompetent government than the people who make money off the internet.
One is guaranteed to be bad for me while the other is incompetent and rather random as a result, but at least there's a chance it could be good for me once in awhile.
Possible good > known bad any day.
So.. you want NN so the FCC is in charge of regulation but hate them??
Surprise, we'd think better of them if they do their jobs instead of jobbing for the elite
The FCC used the Communications Act of 1996 to stop shitty ISP practice before NN. NN came after fear mongering and pressure from the Obama administration which the FCC now regrets. They do not want to regulate the internet like that have T.V and radio. They want to go back to where it was with antitrust under the Communications Act but more so with the FTC who saw the mistake of it.
Honestly you guys are beyond stupid. I've been called an FCC shill for hating NN but if NN stays it's the FCC that has full control. Do you guys not feel retarded for those conflicting views?
Fear mongering my puckered pink ass. There's documented incidents of them doing exactly what this legislation aims to prevent Time and again.
From throttling speeds to blocking certain kinds of data to the insidious underhanded bullshit they do to prevent more competition I feel perfectly warranted to distrust the internet industry.
Net neutrality legislation is entirely necessary.
Do you think they didn't try that stuff before 2015? Like i said stupid fear mongering especially when they still throttle people and raise prices with NN in place.
Except it hasn't BEEN in place. The regulations were supposed to go into effect this year until that twat pai froze it for re-voting.
Which brings up how anti-democratic this whole ordeal has been. The fcc needs more public accountability to prevent situations like this where the majority vote is being cast into doubt by fake comments, underhanded scare tactics, and corporate influence. It's madness.
Yes it has lol wow this is beyond delusional. Why do you think the internet is classified as a Title 2? Did you even read the thing about "fake comments"? It's some Democrat who has zero proof and since the FCC declined to comment he said that is the proof they are bribing people.
There is proof right now that pro NN posts are paid for as well. This is beyond ridiculous. You are the one saying dumb shit about scare tactics when morons like you actually think ISPs will run wild without NN.
I'll pull up sources after work my dude, I've been pretty in depth on this. There's definitely plenty of proof the comments against have been autogenerated, not to MENTION all the dead people 'voting' there. There's plenty of evidence to make a case here.
And again, it was scheduled to take effect this year. Regulations usually have a grace period before implementation so companies can adjust. I might be wrong about this since it was a while ago I heard this, but even if it was implemented it was only codified by the fcc last year.
I suggest you try reading some comments from outside your bubble box, with it will change your mind or give you more ammo to call horseshit on me. Either way you win. Wikipedia has some good cliff notes on both ends of the argument.
If you refuse to even do that you're pretty much just a shill, but one who doesn't even get paid for it.
Yes there is tons of bots here posting pro NN stuff as well. Like i said it is going both ways but there is zero proof the FCC is doing any of it. Vote? What are you talking about? The decision is entirely up to the FCC.
And yes you are wrong, ISPs are already classified as Title 2 because of NN along with other rulings that limit high and low speed internet pricing and from ISPs charging content creators even though they ruled against those things before 2015 using the Communications Act of 1996.
Why do you think it's even coming up again? NN came during the Obama administration. Now the Trump administration is going to repeal it. There is no grace period, it was never set in stone and only would be if Congress voted on it.
Maybe you should quit being a dipshit and stop trying to talk about things you have zero knowledge of. Look up "FTC antitrust internet service providers" to see that yes they are in fact Title 2 because NN is in place.
Or read [the proposal of the FCC for rolling back Net Neutrality rules] (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-21/fcc-unveils-plan-roll-back-net-neutrality-rules),
FCCs [actual plan] (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf),
Instead of listening to Soros and [big tech companies] (http://mashable.com/2017/07/12/tech-companies-visual-fight-for-net-neutrality/) + MSM who are backing Net Neutrality.
Proof its paid for the other way too.
Good lord, why does everyone bring up that irrelevant twat soros? Nobody cares about that fucking twit.
And no, they are pretending to. Their lobbyist efforts all speak otherwise. It's pr stunts and little else.
Again, give me time to pull receipts. If I'm wrong on all this that'll help me refine my opinion, but from what I've gathered so far there's A: a lot of awful propaganda trash going on (as there always is) and B: shady shady bullshit going on in any case. Digital voting is kinda a mistake to begin with and this shit is exactly why.
Yeah, Wikipedia is confirming what I'd read. It was never formally in effect till 2015 and hasn't had enough time to set.
The other legislative issues amount to basic patch jobs, not actual full neutrality.
You athiests are worse than fucking vegans with this shit. The only people who care, even a little bit, about your lack of religion, are you. You bitch and moan and whine, because your parents forced religion down your throat, and shit on you for not being religios. So what do you do? You force the fact that your athiest down peoples throats and shit on them for not being the same.
Also, while churches may be a big money vaccume, at least they fucking do shit for the community. “Hey come eat a thanksgiving meal with us. Hey come donate toys to kids who wont have them.” All you do is sit in your room and whine and complain because mom spent more time following what she believed to be a good cause, than she did telling you how fucking specail you should feel about yourself.
If you need more attention, then maybe start fucking doing shit to get it. Go out, do volunteer work, go on hikes, find a fucking hobbe. Because not one person thinks youre specail, unique, smart or clever for not thinking there is a god. They think you’re a fucking loser for bitching about it so fucking much. In the same way that I think someone who wines and complains that people are gay is a fucking loser.
All in all, you’re a pathetic, sad person. Who is so blinded by his wrongly percived “Intelegence” and “higher understanding of things” that he cant even see that he’s chastising the people who bitch about not being religous, by bitching about not being religous. Its the same fucking thing dumb dumb.
Have a good life you sad fucking mongaloid.
Wait is this a shitpost.
I'm gonna go with yea.
A subreddit for (almost) anything related to games - video games, board games, card games, etc. (but not sports).