https://twitter.com/RepMikeCoffman/s...53921881772032  

Welp. 3-2 vote . Of course it isn't over yet cuz it goes to court or whatever I believe.  

Posted by Rusix

Welp. 3-2 vote . Of course it isn't over yet cuz it goes to court or whatever I believe.

i’ve heard that they’ve been denied twice
hope they get the message  

we lost.  

Posted by ethacon

we lost.

Not exactly, Congress is already talking about nullifying today's vote with the Congressional review act.  

Posted by Rusix

Not exactly, Congress is already talking about nullifying today's vote with the Congressional review act.

I hope so  

Posted by Rusix

Not exactly, Congress is already talking about nullifying today's vote with the Congressional review act.

interesting.  

"but hillary is bad too!" "I don't have to vote for her if I don't want to!"  

Preach  

Posted by ethacon

we lost.

the truth is,
It's never over, Its probably never going to end.


So don't be "Meme'd" into submission.


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...rality-repeal/

huh, that was fast.  

ISPs are still claiming they dont plan on throttling or censoring websites, and these possibilities are just "scary bedtime stories for telecom geeks."
B U L L S H I T . This is no different from saying, "I just passed a law that makes it legal to murder, and I just bought a semi-automatic rifle... but dont worry! I dont plan on killing anyone!"

AT&T says they "wont unfairly discriminate in their treatment of internet traffic." Comcast says they have "no plans to enter into paid prioritization agreements."
B U L L L L L S H I I I I I T . You shafted Netflix streaming speeds and demanded money from them back in 2013 before net neutrality was passed.

ISPs still claim internet consumers will not be affected by the loss of net neutrality.
B �� U �� L �� L �� S �� H �� I �� T . Are you ******ed? Charging fees to websites for access to the "fast lanes" and other preferential treatment will force those websites to charge their users (us) more money for their services. For websites that provide free content: with ad revenue only, they cant afford to pay ISPs to access fast lanes / avoid censorship ~> upon being discriminated against, these websites will rapidly lose traffic ~> less traffic = less ad revenue ~> eventually they wont even be able to pay their server bills... Large chunks of free content disappears from the internet, but that doesnt affect the end users??  

Posted by twilit

ISPs are still claiming they dont plan on throttling or censoring websites, and these possibilities are just "scary bedtime stories for telecom geeks."
B U L L S H I T . This is no different from saying, "I just passed a law that makes it legal to murder, and I just bought a semi-automatic rifle... but dont worry! I dont plan on killing anyone!"

AT&T says they "wont unfairly discriminate in their treatment of internet traffic." Comcast says they have "no plans to enter into paid prioritization agreements."
B U L L L L L S H I I I I I T . You shafted Netflix streaming speeds and demanded money from them back in 2013 before net neutrality was passed.

ISPs still claim internet consumers will not be affected by the loss of net neutrality.
B �� U �� L �� L �� S �� H �� I �� T . Are you ******ed? Charging fees to websites for access to the "fast lanes" and other preferential treatment will force those websites to charge their users (us) more money for their services. For websites that provide free content: with ad revenue only, they cant afford to pay ISPs to access fast lanes / avoid censorship ~> upon being discriminated against, these websites will rapidly lose traffic ~> less traffic = less ad revenue ~> eventually they wont even be able to pay their server bills... Large chunks of free content disappears from the internet, but that doesnt affect the end users??

dOn'T WoRry.

 

Yeah I'm already seeing states like Massachusetts threatening to sue.
I think in the end we'll be fine.

Posted by 5hift

dOn'T WoRry.

cRiNgE  

New York is suing  

Delaware is suing