The reason why I want net neutrality to be repelled is because packages. The intent is to provide consumers with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different packages.
As for cost, they selected initial values based upon data from the isps and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, we're looking at average per-consumer credit earn rates on a daily basis, and we'll be making constant adjustments to ensure that consumers have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay.
They appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on internet, their forums and across numerous social media outlets.
The cable team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as they can.
Net neutrality
The reason I want traps is because the surprise packages. The intent is to provide myself with an unexpected source of amusement and heteroflexibility for unlocking different sex parts in different packages.
As for orientation, the selected feminine penis is based upon data from various Sup Forums boards and other adjustments to my heterosexuality. Among other things, we’re looking at average at-a-glance gender roles on a daily basis, and no-one really has to know if ‘she’ is cute enough, so the adjustment to my sexuality is a private one that is compelling, rewarding, adventurous, and of course attainable in the world today.
Traps appreciate candid feedback, and the passion that they have put forth around the current topic of fluidity here in the West, boards on Sup Forums and across numerous social media outlets.
White Western males will continue to make changes to their gender and monitor community feedback and update their privilege as soon and as often as they can.
*Claps retardedly
Brilliant
CAW
Don't forget it provides a sense of pride and accomplishment
Donald Trumps FCC is EA Games
How to help cable companies to repell net neutrality.
1.) Spend money
2.)spread your ass checks
3.) sit on their lap or let them fuck you
The current NN rules already allow packages. It's the FTC that has a problem with it.
If you want packages to be allowed, then you want to keep the current rules.
Fuck that. I already pay enough for internet, and allowing packages will make shit even worse where I'll end up paying more. Keep NN.
Fuck NN. If the poor can't afford to come online the better. I'd gladly buy expensive internet packages to keep vermin poorfags offline. And a better free market to keep my internet speeds up.
>4u
The reason I want traps is because the surprise packages. The intent is to provide myself with an unexpected source of amusement,heteroflexibility and most of all a sense of pride and accomplishment for sucking on male sex parts in feminine packages.
As for orientation, the selected feminine penis is based upon data from various Sup Forums boards and other adjustments to my heterosexuality. Among other things, we’re looking at average at-a-glance gender roles on a daily basis, and no one really has to know if ‘she’ is cute enough, so the adjustment to my sexuality is a private one that is compelling, rewarding, adventurous, and of course attainable in the world today.
Traps appreciate candid feedback, and the passion that they have put forth around the current topic of gender fluidity here in the West, boards on Sup Forums and across numerous social media outlets.
White Western males will continue to make changes to their gender and monitor community feedback and update their privilege as soon and as often as they can.
...
I don't think you got the point. It's the current laws that allows packages. If you want packages, keep the current NN laws. If you don't want packages, then repeal the current NN laws and return to the previous ones where it wasn't allowed and the FTC could enforce harsh exemption violations.
>"If a broadband provider nonetheless were to choose to exercise editorial discretion—for instance, by picking a limited set of websites to carry and offering that service as a curated internet experience—it might then qualify as a First Amendment speaker. But the Order itself excludes such providers from the rules. The Order defines broadband internet access service as a “mass-market retail service”—i.e., a service that is “marketed and sold on a standardized basis”—that “provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints.” 2015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Rcd. at 5745–46 ¶ 336 & n.879. That definition, by its terms, includes only those broadband providers that hold themselves out as neutral, indiscriminate conduits. Providers that may opt to exercise editorial discretion—for instance, by offering access only to a limited segment of websites specifically catered to certain content—would not offer a standardized service that can reach “substantially all” endpoints. The rules therefore would not apply to such providers, as the FCC has affirmed. See FCC Br. 81, 146 n.53."
Page 114
lmao
Then what the hell is it then? I hear some say killing NN makes you end up paying for packages while other say killing NN you won't pay for packages. I pay $70 per month for internet and I do not want it to skyrocket or pay for extra shit that already included so far with what I am paying for.
Let me make things simple for you. Is Reddit promoting the living shit out of it? If yes, then do the exact opposite.
Everyone should oppose it because it's a preemptive blanket regulation. Also its goal is to get rid of price discrimination.
If you don't understand this kys.
ISPs can package whenever the fuck they want under the current rules. They just choose not to for some reason.
>While the net neutrality rule applies to those ISPs that hold themselves out as neutral, indiscriminate conduits to internet content, the converse is also true: the rule does not apply to an ISP holding itself out as providing something other than a neutral, indiscriminate pathway—i.e., an ISP making sufficiently clear to potential customers that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of “editorial intervention.” For instance, Alamo Broadband, the lone broadband provider that raises a First Amendment challenge to the rule, posits the example of an ISP wishing to provide access solely to “family friendly websites.” Alamo Pet. Reh’g 5. Such an ISP, as long as it represents itself as engaging in editorial intervention of that kind, would fall outside the rule.The Order thus specifies that an ISP remains “free to offer ‘edited’ services” without becoming subject to the rule’s requirements.
>That would be true of an ISP that offers subscribers a curated experience by blocking websites lying beyond a specified field of content (e.g., family friendly websites). It would also be true of an ISP that engages in other forms of editorial intervention, such as throttling of certain applications chosen by the ISP, or filtering of content into fast (and slow) lanes based on the ISP’s commercial interests. An ISP would need to make adequately clear its intention to provide “edited services” of that kind, so as to avoid giving consumers a mistaken impression that they would enjoy indiscriminate “access to all content available on the Internet, without the editorial intervention of their broadband provider,”. It would not be enough under the Order, for instance, for “consumer permission” to be “buried in a service plan—the threats of consumer deception and confusion are simply too great.”
>There is no need in this case to scrutinize the exact manner in which a broadband provider could render the FCC’s Order inapplicable by advertising to consumers that it offers an edited service rather than an unfiltered pathway. No party disputes that an ISP could do so if it wished, and no ISP has suggested an interest in doing so in this court. That may be for an understandable reason: a broadband provider representing that it will filter its customers’ access to web content based on its own priorities might have serious concerns about its ability to attract subscribers. Additionally, such a provider, by offering filtered rather than indiscriminate access, might fear relinquishing statutory protections against copyright liability afforded to ISPs that act strictly as conduits to internet content.
Corps are already blocking other corps.
It has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality, and never has.
If net neutrality is taken away, no matter if you support it or not, everyone will be fucked.
google.com
What? How the fuck will taking away net neutrality will help the sick and disabled? I don't get at all. Somebody please explain it to me.
Net Neutrality is a very small issue that people get their opinion from other people with vested interests. Come pick up your free sign and cross to die on.
The sky is falling! The internet was horrible before 2015!