Net Neutrality – The End Of Google's Biggest Subsidy

[Ares]

Net Neutrality is gone. Good riddance.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/12/15/20171216_net_0.jpg

Lost in all of the theoretical debate about how evil ISPs will create a have/have-not divide in Internet access, is the reality that it already exists along with massive subsidies to the biggest bandwidth pigs on the planet – Facebook, Google, Twitter, Netflix and the porn industry.

Under Net Neutrality these platforms flourished along with the rise of the mobile internet, which is now arguably more important than the ‘desktop’ one in your home and office.

Google and Apple control the on-ramps to the mobile web in a way that Net Neutrality proponents can only dream the bandwidth providers like Comcast and AT&T could.

Because, in truth, they can’t. Consumers are ultimately the ones who decide how much bandwidth costs, not the ISPs. We decide how much we can afford these creature comforts like streaming Netflix while riding the bus or doing self-indulgent Instagram videos of our standing in line at the movies (if that’s even a thing anymore).

Non-Neutrality Pricing

Net Neutrality took pricing of bandwidth out of the hands of consumers. It handed the profits from it to Google, Facebook and all the crappy advertisers spamming video ads, malware, scams, and the like everywhere.

By mandating ‘equal access’ and equal fee structures the advertisers behind Google and Facebook would spend their budgets without much thought or care. Google and Facebook ad revenue soared under Net Neutrality because advertisers’ needs are not aligned with Google’s bottom line, but with consumers’.

And, because of that, the price paid to deliver the ad, i.e. Google’s cost of goods sold (COGS), thanks to Net Neutrality, was held artificially low. And Google, Facebook and the Porn Industry pocketed the difference.

They grew uncontrollably. In the case of Google and Facebook, uncontrollably powerful.

That difference was never passed onto the ISP who could then, in turn, pass it on to the consumer.

All thanks to Net Neutrality.

Undercapitalized Growth

With the rise of the mobile web bandwidth should have been getting cheaper and easier to acquire at a much faster rate than it has. But, it couldn’t because of Net Neutrality. It kept rates of return on new bandwidth projects and new technology suppressed.

Money the ISP’s should have been spending laying more fiber, putting up more cell towers, building better radios went to Google to fritter away on endless projects that never see the light of day.

The ISP’s actually suffered under Net Neutrality and so did the consumers.

And therefore, Net Neutrality guaranteed that the infrastructure for new high-speed bandwidth would grow at the slowest possible rate, still governed by the maximum the consumer was willing to pay for bandwidth, rather than what the consumer actually demanded.

And, once obtained that power was then used to punish anyone who held different opinions from the leadership in Silicon Valley.

Think it through, Net Neutrality not only subsidized intrusive advertising, phishing scams and on-demand porn but also the very censorship these powerful companies now feel is their sacred duty to enforce because the government is now controlled by the bad guys.

Getting rid of Net Neutrality will put the costs of delivering all of this worthless content back onto the people serving it. YouTube will become more expensive for Google and all of the other content delivery networks. Facebook video will eat into its bottom line.

The ISP’s can and should throttle them until they ‘pay their fair share,’ which they plainly have not been.

The Net effect of Net Neutrality is that your ISP may charge you more in the short run for Netflix or Hulu. Or, more appropriately, Netflix and Hulu will have to charge you more and we’ll find out what the real cost of delivering 4k streaming content to your iPhone actually costs.

But, those costs will then go to the ISP’s such that they can respond to demand for more bandwidth. Will they try and overcharge us? Of course. AT&T is just as bad as Google and/or Facebook.

But, we have the right to say no. To stop using the services the way Net Neutrality encouraged us to through mispricing of service. If the ISP’s want more customers then they’ll have to bring wire out to the hinterlands.

Inflated Costs, Poor Service

Net Neutrality proponents kept telling us this was the way to help keep the internet available to the poor and the rural. Nonsense. It kept the internet from expanding properly into the hinterlands.

I live just over the county line in rural North Florida. To the south is a town with cable and DSL. Between cable franchise monopolies retarding expansion across county lines and Net Neutrality keeping margins thin, my home was 10 years behind everyone else getting decent bandwidth to keep up with the needs of the modern Internet.

Bandwidth needs artificially inflated, I might add, by the misaligned cost structure engendered by Net Neutrality in the first place.

It took forever for my phone provider to upgrade the bandwidth across the county line. I begged them for a second line for internet service, they wouldn’t even talk to me. Why? The return on that new line wasn’t high enough for them.

If Google was passing some of the profits from Adwords onto the ISPs I’d have multiple choices for high-speed internet versus just one DSL provider.

As always, whenever the political left tries to protect the poor they wind up making things worse for them.

The Ways Forward

The news is good for a variety of reasons. With Net Neutrality gone a major barrier to entry for content delivery networks is gone.

Blockchain companies are building systems which cut the middle man out completely, allowing content creators to be directly tipped for their work versus being supported by advertising no one watches, wants or is swayed by.

Services like Steemit and the distributed application already built and to be built on it point the way to social media cost models which are sustainable and align the incentives properly between producers of content and consumers.

Steem internalizes the bandwidth costs of using the network and pays itself a part of its token reward pool to cover those costs. So, all that’s left is content producer and their fans. Advertisers are simply not needed to maintain the network.

Net Neutrality was a trojan horse designed to replicate the old shout-based advertising model of the golden age of print and TV advertising. It was a way to control the megaphone and promote a particular point of view.

Look no further than the main proponents of it. George Soros and the Ford Foundation are two of the biggest lobbyists for Net Neutrality. Only the political left and its Marxian fantasies of evil middle men creating monopolies fell for the lies, as they were supposed to.

The rest of us were like, “Really? This is not a problem.” And it wasn’t until you looked under the hood and realized all they stood to gain by it.

Now, with Net Neutrality gone the underlying problem can be addressed; franchise monopolies of cable and phone companies in geographic areas. These laws are still in effect. They still hang like a spectre over the entire industry. Like Net Neutrality, these laws concentrate capital into the hands of the few providers big enough to keep out the competition.

So, instead of championing the end of franchise monopolies, which county governments love because they get a sizable cut of the revenue to fund non-essential programs, the Left made things worse by championing Net Neutrality.

That also needs to end. Even if you believe that franchise monopolies were, at one point, necessary. They are not now. IP-based communication is now fundamentally different than copper wire for discrete services like phone and cable. Let people run all the copper and fiber they want. There’s plenty of room in the conduit running under our sidewalks and streets.

Let a thousand flowers bloom, as the great Lew Rockwell once told me.

Then and only then will the Internet be free.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-16/net-neutrality-%E2%80%93-end-googles-biggest-subsidy

[crimethink]

Wow, what an article. And that's not praise.

I'm an avowed defender of net neutrality. Megacorporations like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcrap should not have the ability to slow down or cut off data they don't like. Period. Net neutrality is simply the prohibition on them to do such crap.

As for Google or Facebook or Netflix, the end user chooses to use them. No one is forced to do so. However, in most cases, you get a "choice" of one or two megacorporation telecom providers. The "argument" that net neutrality made the content gateways what they are today is utter bullshit. If people choose to not use them anymore, they will dry up and wither...just as the once-leading search engine and portal, Yahoo!, did, and just as MySpace did.

But the point is that megacorporations should not be deciding for you...you are paying for a public utility, and you should get to decide.

As is usual with (((Austrian School))) ideology, the position is ass backwards. The destruction of net neutrality will NOT make things cheaper, or spur more (meaningful) choices. Oh, we may get "choices" alright, such as $89.95/month "basic Internet package, "delivering all of the best, trusted content from CNN, Disney, NBC, and CBS. For only $29.95/month, you can add Netflix streaming. For just $99.95 more per month, you can access 1000s more websites at high-speed rates. Terms and conditions* apply. Thank you for using Verizon/AT&T/Comcrap!"

* Some Internet protocols and services are not accessible, including torrent, virtual private networks, and other dangerous services as determined by our partners SPLC, MPAA, RIAA, and FinCEN.

Asshat Pai's decree will take us back to the days of 1996 AOHell....

[Ares]

Wow, what an article. And that's not praise.

I'm an avowed defender of net neutrality. Megacorporations like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcrap should not have the ability to slow down data they don't like. Period. Net neutrality is simply the prohibition on them to do such crap.

As for Google or Facebook or Netflix, the end user chooses to use them. No one is forced to do so. However, in most cases, you get a "choice" of one or two megacorporation telecom providers. The "argument" that net neutrality made the content gateways what they are today is utter bullshit. If people choose to not use them anymore, they will dry up and wither...just as the once-leading search engine and portal, Yahoo!, did, and just as MySpace did.

But the point is that megacorporations should not be deciding for you...you are paying for a public utility, and you should get to decide.

As is usual with (((Austrian School))) ideology, the position is ass backwards. The destruction of net neutrality will NOT make things cheaper, or spur more (meaningful) choices. Oh, we may get "choices" alright, such as $89.95/month "basic Internet package, "delivering all of the best, trusted content from CNN, Disney, NBC, and CBS. For only $29.95/month, you can add Netflix streaming. For just $99.95 more per month, you can access 1000s more websites at high-speed rates. Terms and conditions* apply. Thank you for using Verizon/AT&T/Comcrap!"

* Some Internet protocols and services are not accessible, including torrent, virtual private networks, and other dangerous services as determined by the SPLC, MPAA, RIAA, and FinCEN.

Asshat Pai's decree will take us back to the days of 1996 AOHell....

The FCC's decision was a power grab to begin with and they lacked the authority since the internet fell under the FTC's jurisdiction. If the FTC decides they want to regulate it, that's up to them, not the FCC. It was a power grab, plain and simple.

Net Neutrality was complete bullshit to begin with. Whether you agree with Andrew Anglin or not, you can't even argue that he was treated fairly when Domain Name Provider (Godaddy) pulled his domain even though his speech is supposedly protected.

That all happened while "Net Neutrality" was in play.

[crimethink]

"All the ISPs are against net neutrality."

Nope.

https://www.sonic.com/sonic-net-neutrality

Sonic remains committed to net neutrality

Sonic always has and always will keep our internet connections fair and open. We will continue to protect your right to privacy, and your right to watch what you want, when you want, on any content provider you choose without upcharging you.

Sonic will continue to stand up for everything net neutrality stands for. You still have a choice in who you choose as an internet service provider. You can choose to support ISPs that keep their internet connections fair and open for all.

Switch to Sonic Internet + Phone from $40/mo and support a fair and open internet.


https://www.fastcompany.com/40499904/small-isp-disputes-fcc-claim-that-net-neutrality-hurts-small-isps

Small ISP disputes FCC claim that net neutrality hurts small ISPs

After 50 pages of legalese, the FCC’s new order on net neutrality makes its case for why regulations are bad for broadband companies and consumers. The biggest argument—pushed by major ISPs like Comcast—is that “Open Internet Order” regulations have made ISPs gun-shy about investing, depressing spending by billions per year. Ironically, Comcast was among several ISPs that actually increased investment in that time period. Analysis by Morgan Stanley says that wireless carriers may have over-invested because they were too optimistic about the demand for faster service.

In particular, the FCC highlights the burden of net neutrality regulations on smaller ISPs. Citing input from the American Cable Association, they argue, “Small ISPs state that these increased compliance costs and regulatory burdens have forced them to divert money and attention away from planned broadband service and network upgrades and expansions.”

But not all smaller ISPs agree. “No, this doesn’t align with our experience. We haven’t experienced any material cost related to compliance with the Open Internet Order,” writes Dane Jasper, CEO of Santa Rosa, California-based Sonic, in an email to Fast Company.

Sonic has about 100,000 customers and is expanding in cities like San Francisco, challenging big ISPs for market share. So it’s not surprising that the ISP isn’t chummy with the likes of AT&T, Comcast, or Verizon on political issues. Sonic is also touting net neutrality as a differentiator and has aligned itself with activists who support regulation.

Jasper claims that growing customer appetite for video, not regulations, is what’s hurting some ISPs—especially the wireless ISPs that operate in rural areas where it isn’t economical to string cable or fiber. They don’t want to invest in upgrades, he claims.

“I personally know a number of WISPs that use equipment…to throttle Netflix. They say without doing this, they’d have to upgrade sectors and backhaul radios, as well as upstream connections,” says Jasper. “I say it’s disingenuous at best to sell consumers ’15Mbps,’ but then to de-prioritize and throttle some types of traffic because the uplink is full. That’s a fundamental neutrality violation, and I believe it is the reason for the large number of WISPs who have supported Pai’s efforts to overturn consumer protections.”

[vacuum]

crimethink and others,

You should read this before defending net neutrality:

http://i.magaimg.net/img/23vv.png


TLDR: Net neutrality requires every ISP to obtain a broadcasting license from the government before they are allowed to provide users access to the internet. Of course all broadcasting licenses are rubber stamped and granted today, but in the future, the government could make broadcasting licenses harder to get or revoke existing ones. Furthermore, there are laws on the books related to "foreign influence" which could allow the government to revoke licenses if the ISP allows what the government considers to be foreign propaganda on its network. Maybe you can now start to see the picture of what they set up and where it was going.

[crimethink]

The FCC's decision was a power grab to begin with and they lacked the authority since the internet fell under the FTC's jurisdiction. If the FTC decides they want to regulate it, that's up to them, not the FCC. It was a power grab, plain and simple.

Net Neutrality was complete bullshit to begin with. Whether you agree with Andrew Anglin or not, you can't even argue that he was treated fairly when Domain Name Provider (Godaddy) pulled his domain even though his speech is supposedly protected.

That all happened while "Net Neutrality" was in play.

Title II has been resisted by the megacorporations since the beginning. Anglin's fate happened on the watch of pro-corporatism Trump/Sessions/Pai...exactly who was going to act against the leftist thugs who denied him access to the Internet? Additionally, Title II was not applicable to domain name registrars...but it should be (in fact, we should be back to where we were, a single, truly-neutral registrar).

The FCC has every right to regulate incorporated common carriers acting in interstate commerce, which is exactly what Verizon/AT&T/Comcrap are...including their provision of Internet access (not "content").

If you oppose net neutrality, do you also oppose electricity neutrality? Should your utility be allowed to charge you one price to power a Talmudvision, and another to power A/C or a power tool? If so, you would necessarily need to support "total information awareness" within your home to enable them to do so.

[Ares]

Title II has been resisted by the megacorporations since the beginning. Anglin's fate happened on the watch of pro-corporatism Trump/Sessions/Pai...exactly who was going to act against the leftist thugs who denied him access to the Internet? Additionally, Title II was not applicable to domain name registrars...but it should be (in fact, we should be back to where we were, a single, truly-neutral registrar).

The FCC has every right to regulate incorporated common carriers acting in interstate commerce, which is exactly what Verizon/AT&T/Comcrap are...including their provision of Internet access (not "content").

If you oppose net neutrality, do you also oppose electricity neutrality? Should your utility be allowed to charge you one price to power a Talmudvision, and another to power A/C or a power tool? If so, you would necessarily need to support "total information awareness" within your home to enable them to do so.

LOL like there is any neutrality with electricity. Let me tell you how they go about raising rates. They'll put a bulletin about a rate increase, have an open forum where people can voice their opposition. After that they go to the state who rubber stamps it and your bill increases in 90-180 days.

I don't want that kind of "regulatory" oversight for my internet. Where I live I have access to 3 different high speed providers. If the one I'm currently using wants to increase rates I'll leave and go to another. I can't do that with electricity.

Regulation is just Orwellian speech for "State approved monopoly."

[crimethink]

crimethink and others,

You should read this before defending net neutrality:

http://i.magaimg.net/img/23vv.png


TLDR: Net neutrality requires every ISP to obtain a broadcasting license from the government before they are allowed to provide users access to the internet. Of course all broadcasting licenses are rubber stamped and granted today, but in the future, the government could make broadcasting licenses harder to get or revoke existing ones. Furthermore, there are laws on the books related to "foreign influence" which could allow the government to revoke licenses if the ISP allows what the government considers to be foreign propaganda on its network. Maybe you can now start to see the picture of what they set up and where it was going.

Unfortunately, that's a lot of words but nothing said.

Verizon/AT&T/Comcrap and all the rest already have government licenses...called incorporation. Like all "libertarians," they whine and shriek about "freedom from government interference," but have no qualms about asking the government for protection via a limited liability corporation.

I don't understand how people simply don't "get" the point of net neutrality. It's not a "power grab," it's not a "Soros scheme," it's not a means for "censorship." In fact, the opposite! It simply extends to Internet telecommunications access what already applies to hardine and wireless telecommunications! All the "arguments" against net neutrality are prime facie bullshit, since the voice line providers have not suffered the pretend doom net neutrality supposedly brings. People are freaking out about the potential for government censorship, yet fail to understand without net neutrality, you will GET censorship by the likes of fuckers at Verizon and Comcrap! That already happened.

I'd actually laugh if, now that net neutrality is going away, the megacorporations simply block or slow to a crawl all the "libertarian" and "conservative" sites that wanked to the repeal of net neutrality. Well-deserved justice. Stockholm Syndrome and karma.

[crimethink]

LOL like there is any neutrality with electricity.


You avoided the question.

With the Internet of Things, what I proposed is entirely possible now.

Do you support electricity neutrality, or not? Should one kilowatt hour be one kilowatt hour, or should you be charged according to what the megacorporation decides is "justified"?




I don't want that kind of "regulatory" oversight for my internet. Where I live I have access to 3 different high speed providers. If the one I'm currently using wants to increase rates I'll leave and go to another.


Ooooh, three!

And one controls the copper and one controls the coaxial. If you're very lucky, the other controls a fiber line. All of them collude to maintain maximized prices and minimized service. And all of them are dependent upon a handful of upstream major providers (if one or more is not themselves the provider).




I can't do that with electricity.


Generate your own!




Regulation is just Orwellian speech for "State approved monopoly."

In the context of this topic, "freedom" is just Kosher speech for "another way for corporations to rape the Goyim."

[Jerrylynnb]

I may not totally understand the what "net neutrality" actually means, but I am thinking it has something to do with the troubles, starting in July, trying to bring up INCOGMAN.NET - I have to use something called a Virtual Private Network (VPN) in order to bring up INCOGMAN's website from my house here in rural north Texas, where AT&T has a monopoly for many of the smaller towns.

If they are violating net neutrality (since July) by denying access to his website (because of his pro-white postings), then, YES!, I am for net neutrality and I'd like to see AT&T lose their net liscense if they did that - who the hell do they think they are deciding FOR ME that I can't get to his website?

Whoever the FCC decides to grant a liscense to, allowing them to string fiber and provide internet access to all these remote areas, MUST NOT restrict access to ANY WEBSITE, no matter what the content is - that is not up to them to decide, but to WE THE USER's to either visit, or NOT. Is my thinking right, crimethink? Or is net neutrality something not related to AT&T's denying access to INCOGMAN.NET?

[vacuum]

Unfortunately, that's a lot of words but nothing said.

Verizon/AT&T/Comcrap and all the rest already have government licenses...called incorporation. Like all "libertarians," they whine and shriek about "freedom from government interference," but have no qualms about asking the government for protection via a limited liability corporation.

I don't understand how people simply don't "get" the point of net neutrality. It's not a "power grab," it's not a "Soros scheme," it's not a means for "censorship." In fact, the opposite! It simply extends to Internet telecommunications access what already applies to hardine and wireless telecommunications! All the "arguments" against net neutrality are prime facie bullshit, since the voice line providers have not suffered the pretend doom net neutrality supposedly brings. People are freaking out about the potential for government censorship, yet fail to understand without net neutrality, you will GET censorship by the likes of fuckers at Verizon and Comcrap! That already happened.

I'd actually laugh if, now that net neutrality is going away, the megacorporations simply block or slow to a crawl all the "libertarian" and "conservative" sites that wanked to the repeal of net neutrality. Well-deserved justice. Stockholm Syndrome and karma.

How can you say this is not a Soros scheme when he, google, facebook, etc, have pumped hundreds of millions into this issue?

How can getting permission from the government to give people access to the web ever, under any circumstance, be a good thing?

Verizon and Comcast can be regulated by other means, such as the FTC. Also, other internet service providers can simply provide superior service if there is enough of a market for it.

You are taking the side of Soros, Google, Facebook, and Obama on this issue.

[Ares]

You avoided the question.

With the Internet of Things, what I proposed is entirely possible now.

Do you support electricity neutrality, or not? Should one kilowatt hour be one kilowatt hour, or should you be charged according to what the megacorporation decides is "justified"?

Not really, I pointed out the disparity of state sponsored monopolies. Case in point I've only been at my current house for a little over 3 years. When I first moved in electricity was 10 cents per kilowatt hour. They have since then raised the rates 2 times in 3 years and are now charging 12 cents per kilowatt hour. Every single time a rate increase was proposed and was almost unanimously opposed in the public discussion forum. Each time it didn't matter and the state rubber stamped the rate increase.

My point is that it doesn't matter if regulation is in place or not. Bandwidth is not free, facebook, Google (YouTube), Neflix, Hulu, etc are enormous bandwidth hogs. Like the article mentioned the government basically told all ISP's (Big or small) that it didn't matter if these services were consuming 80-90% of your allotted bandwidth you couldn't throttle it or do any sort of traffic shaping to alleviate congestion on your own network. Say you started a business and you have hogs in that business but the government is telling you that you can't do anything to stop them from hogging your business resources. With that decree from the government you're also expected to lay new fiber. See the problem here? I prefer the ISP's model bandwidth pricing. 10mb per month you only pay 19.99 etc. Unlimited bandwidth you pay a lot more, but you get what the name implies. ISP's didn't force package deals before net neutrality, they aren't going to after it as there isn't a way to enforce it. All someone would have to do is get a pay for the lowest package with no (social media, network streaming etc.) then get a VPN which there are hundreds and are relatively cheap, some are even free (but throttled) and just stream whatever you want and go to any social media site you want.





Ooooh, three!

And one controls the copper and one controls the coaxial. If you're very lucky, the other controls a fiber line. All of them collude to maintain maximized prices and minimized service. And all of them are dependent upon a handful of upstream major providers (if one or more is not themselves the provider).

In my neighborhood each service ran their own fiber (2 of them did anyway, tearing up my yard both times :( ), the cable carrier hasn't increased speeds in this area in a while. But I have 2 fiber providers that I can choose from for full gigabit bandwidth. The pricing between them is actually pretty different, the larger carrier has a bit of a cheaper rate while the smaller carrier wants you to buy their package (TV, Internet, Phone bundle etc.) for a bit of a higher price.





Generate your own!

Believe me, I would LOVE too. But Solar still isn't efficient enough, I live no where near running water, and battery technology still isn't dense enough to not require $20,000 worth in order to power a house for 1 to 2 days if the sun isn't around long enough to recharge them due to a storm system moving through. So for the time being I'm still required to be on the grid paying 12 cents per kilowatt hour.


In the context of this topic, "freedom" is just Kosher speech for "another way for corporations to rape the Goyim."

So is calling something "Net Neutrality" and it being absolutely nothing that the name implies. Kind of like the "Patriot Act" eh Goyim? :)

[crimethink]

How can you say this is not a Soros scheme when he, google, facebook, etc, have pumped hundreds of millions into this issue?


How can you say so-called "free market solutions" (sic) is not a Jewish/homosexual scheme when the Jewish Krotch Brothers, faggot Peter Thiel, and hundreds of millionaires and billionaires who adhere to "Ayn Rand" and the (((Austrian School))) pour billions into it?

See how that works?




How can getting permission from the government to give people access to the web ever, under any circumstance, be a good thing?


Like I noted before, the doom that anti-net neutrality kooks claim will happen HAS NOT HAPPENED in the case of voice service.

Further, Title II application is NOT "permission to access the web." That's about as idiotic an "argument" as possible. It has everything to do with forcing those who seek out government license via incorporation to not manipulate communications access for their own agenda.




Verizon and Comcast can be regulated by other means, such as the FTC.


LOL. So you APPROVE of government regulation. Got it.




Also, other internet service providers can simply provide superior service if there is enough of a market for it.


LOL. So, "other internet providers" can provide just how many twisted pairs, fiber lines, and coax to each and every home? Do you even have a clue about "last mile"?

As I noted above, a regional ISP, Sonic, is staunchly in FAVOR of Title II, because it has no negative impact on their business. Demonstrating the key "arguments against" are horseshit.





You are taking the side of Soros, Google, Facebook, and Obama on this issue.

You are taking the side of the Krotch Brothers, "Ayn Rand," Bitch McConnell, and all the other Jewish and Shabbos Goy "free market solutions" con men, alive and dead.

In reality, I am looking out ONLY for my own interests...which are fighting fuckers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcrap by whatever means are necessary...including using the FCC as a baseball bat against them.

[crimethink]

I may not totally understand the what "net neutrality" actually means, but I am thinking it has something to do with the troubles, starting in July, trying to bring up INCOGMAN.NET - I have to use something called a Virtual Private Network (VPN) in order to bring up INCOGMAN's website from my house here in rural north Texas, where AT&T has a monopoly for many of the smaller towns.

If they are violating net neutrality (since July) by denying access to his website (because of his pro-white postings), then, YES!, I am for net neutrality and I'd like to see AT&T lose their net liscense if they did that - who the hell do they think they are deciding FOR ME that I can't get to his website?

Whoever the FCC decides to grant a liscense to, allowing them to string fiber and provide internet access to all these remote areas, MUST NOT restrict access to ANY WEBSITE, no matter what the content is - that is not up to them to decide, but to WE THE USER's to either visit, or NOT. Is my thinking right, crimethink? Or is net neutrality something not related to AT&T's denying access to INCOGMAN.NET?

In response to your last paragraph, your interpretation is correct: no discrimination for or against a particular bit of information carried. Visiting Google, Facebook, Stormfront, GSUS...all the same speed and ability to access.

Honestly, I'm not sure if censorship of Incogman's site is due to the anticipation of repeal of net neutrality. It could be. But the important point is that the repeal of net neutrality will allow such things to happen on a whim.

[singular_me]

if true, this is JAW dropping...

net neutrality was/is a scam anyway, so it is not worth taking side... but as usual, lets follow the money

============================
Here’s How Much TeleCom Industry Gave Each Republican Who Urged FCC To End Net Neutrality
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xwknx/republican-members-of-congress-fcc-letter?utm_campaign=sharebutton
Congress took $101 million in donations from the ISP industry — here’s how much your lawmaker got
They’ve documented how much in “donations” 84 of those members have received from TeleCom industry giants. Here’s their entire list:

Mo Brooks, Alabama, $26,000
Ron Estes, Kansas, $13,807
Thomas Massie, Kentucky, $25,000
Ralph Norman, South Carolina, $15,050
John Moolenaar, Michigan, $25,000
Neal Dunn, Florida, $18,500
Mike Bishop, Michigan, $68,250
Alex Mooney, West Virginia, $17,750
Glenn “GT” Thompson, Pennsylvania, $70,500
Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri, $105,000
Paul Gosar, Arizona, $12,250
Richard W. Allen, Georgia, $24,250
Kevin Cramer, North Dakota, $168,500
Greg Walden, Oregon, $1,605,986
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee, $600,999
Billy Long, Missouri, $221,500
Gregg Harper, Mississippi, $245,200
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky, $398,500
Bill Johnson, Ohio, $196,666
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina, $41,830
Earl “Buddy” Carter, Georgia, $39,250
Susan Brooks, Indiana, $168,500
Gus Bilirakis, Florida, $234,400
Markwayne Mullin, Oklahoma, $141,750
Mimi Walters, California, $161,500
Joe Barton, Texas, $1,262,757
Bill Flores, Texas, $127,500
Pete Olson, Texas, $220,500
Morgan Griffith, Virginia, $198,900
Tim Walberg, Michigan, $131,850
Fred Upton, Michigan, $1,590,125
Joe Wilson, South Carolina, $104,750
Martha McSally, Arizona, $84,936
Blake Farenthold, Texas, $64,250
Steve Womack, Arkansas, $104,750
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania, $130,700
Louie Gohmert, Texas, $85,055
Walter Jones, North Carolina, $72,800
Leonard Lance, New Jersey, $290,550
Steve Chabot, Ohio, $332,083
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, $815,099
Andy Biggs, Arizona, $19,500
Mark Walker, North Carolina, $35,750
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, $21,200
Ken Buck, Colorado, $79,350
Larry Bucshon, Indiana, $71,750
Chuck Fleischmann, Tennessee, $42,00
David Rouzer, North Carolina, $34,300
Paul Mitchell, Michigan, $18,000
Hal Rogers, Kentucky, $360,450
Doug Collins, Georgia, $103,600
Ralph Abraham, Louisiana, $27,300
Mark Meadows, North Carolina, $14,500
Michael McCaul, Texas, $216,500
Jeb Hensarling, Texas, $270,198
Mike Simpson, Idaho, $125,200
Tom Emmer, Minnesota, $28,500
Randy Weber, Texas, $13,750
Rob Woodall, Georgia, $60,250
Ted Budd, North Carolina, $15,500
Ken Calvert, California, $219,212
Diane Black, Tennessee, $104,750
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina, $115,700
Sam Johnson, Texas, $219,785
James Comer, Kentucky, $22,750
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, $83,250
Lamar Smith, Texas, $810,462
Steven A King, Iowa, $210,810
George Holding, North Carolina, $97,750
Rob Wittman, Virginia, $57,250
John Lee Ratcliffe, Texas, $53,950
Jason Lewis, Minnesota, $21,050
Jim Banks, Indiana, $16,303
Bill Huizenga, Michigan, $34,000
Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania, $202,500
Steven Russell, Oklahoma, $23,500
Adrian Smith, Nebraska, $165,834
Jody B Hice, Georgia, $21,000
Richard Hudson, North Carolina, $136,750
Douglas L Lamborn, Colorado, $110,543
Chris Collins, New York, $151,060
Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, Washington, $673,530
Brad Wenstrup, Ohio, $33,750
Andy Barr, Kentucky, $51,100