slackjaw is failing to disclose his personal financial bias. it would be quite profitable for his employer if net neutrally was struck down. and slack, as one of those guys who has been convinced by the supply siders despite the fact that he is small potatoes, and so he will toe the line, and vote and advocate against his own best interests.

mental note: the only person in this thread that is against net neutrality, is directly employed by a company that would benieft vastly by it being struck down.

No it is not fact. People here also expect 100% up-time. Good luck finding that elsewhere. People here don't care about internet speed as much as other country's that's what is fact.

Excellent point cockerpunk. Although I'm not sure where Wayne stands -- maybe I misinterpreted his response.

What is your problem? you have lost every argument in this entire thread so you personally attack me. You don't know who signs my paycheck and the company I work for does not care about Net Neutrality one way or another. Why is it fair to you for those with infrastructure to be forced to give away service for free to those who do not have infrastructure or expenses of building one? Why do you think the world owes you something?

You Net Neutrality idiots ***** and moan about not having fast enough internet and it being sooooooooo expensive then you want to cripple the entire industry with your BS. Put a choke on them force them to support the little guys. I hope your internet bills go to 500 bucks a month and when you complain they send someone to your house to spit in your face.

And it already got struck down. And it will never pass in its current form.

Wayne is not in favor of net neutrality. how does that benefit him? oh but I am the only one who is against it in your imagination.

Something else that's not true is an excellent point? how does that work? WTF man why does the world owe you something for nothing?

why do you consistently try to re-define net neutrality? I don't want cable ISPs discriminating traffic by site. That's net neutrality. Given the industry's claim that it currently does not, that's "nothing for nothing" not "something for nothing."

Wayne's post seems? to suggest consumers should pay for the data they use. That has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Why do you not have a full understanding of something you blindly support?

People here don't care about internet speed? Not only is this laughable, it also points out you truly have no clue what you're talking about.

You keep saying people don't understand what net neutrality is all about, and calling them stupid. It honestly seems as if you're the only one here who really doesn't get it, Slak. Step back and do some more research. If you're going to be so passionate about something, it helps to also be educated about it.

I posted the link to the FCC's order. If you have other links or can point out where the order implies otherwise, post 'em! I'd be happy to further my understanding.

actually you have won nothing.

failing to disclose your personal bias due to employment is a key point in this argument.

wayne was talking about users paying for there access, which is not net neutrality. you don't even understand the terms you are discussing .... seriously ....

I haven't called anyone here stupid. Please stop making stuff up.

You are the one who needs to educate yourself. Tell me why those that own infrastructure should be forced to support those without infrastructure under all circumstances no matter what even if it means they go bankrupt. Go ahead and explain that to everyone here on this site. Please just answer the question.

OK. I work for Nokia. Better? I have no bias. Now point out your bias. what piss-ant company does your employer get IP transit from.

Wayne said more than that in his post. You do not understand this topic. seriously.

Infrastructure providers are nowhere near going bankrupt; they're making billions every quarter. They charge the consumer (you and me), and the content providers ride that gravy train. THAT is the business model.

What they are looking for now is to double dip: charge you and me more and more each and every year (for often lesser service), AND charge the content providers. They are the conduit--the middle man--of the internet. IF this goes forth, expect to see a lot more companies doing what Google is doing--creating their own infrastructure in order to cut out the middle man.

And Wayne can correct me if I'm wrong, but his position seemed pretty darn clear to me...if the CONSUMER (you and me) want faster speeds, they can pay for it--not Netflix or whoever.

Google gets their back-haul from Sprint and Verizon. They have nothing but last mile they cannot cut anyone out.

Man so since I pay for phone service I should be able to call any other phone for free because hey man I pay for mine so they should not have to. this is actually what you boys believe. whatever.

You didn't answer my question so I will ask again...

Tell me why those that own infrastructure should be forced to support those without infrastructure under all circumstances no matter what even if it means they go bankrupt. Go ahead and explain that to everyone here on this site. Please just answer the question.

This isn't calling people stupid?

I don't make stuff up....

Um...I do call everyone else for "free." They charge me for the service; the service includes free calls to anyone; regardless of what network the called party uses. I, the consumer, pay for access to that "pipe." My distant end also pays for access to that pipe. So, AT&T should charge Samsung for every call made by a Samsung phone? That's what your argument equates to...

is English your first language? You are saying Netflix should not have to pay for their connection. You just said that a few posts ago.

Tell me why those that own infrastructure should be forced to support those without infrastructure under all circumstances no matter what even if it means they go bankrupt. Go ahead and explain that to everyone here on this site. Please just answer the question.

What you're arguing against is not net neutrality.

Cable providers see their video content (cable) market declining. Whereas they exert near-monopoly control over video content via traditional cable, a 'neutral' internet allows all content providers equal access to all content consumers. Their goal is to discriminate among content providers and restore that monopoly. The goal of net neutrality is to prevent them.