Net Neutrality

Daryl Zero · Post by **Daryl Zero** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:07 pm

John Oliver did a great job throwing this out:

[youtube]fpbOEoRrHyU[/youtube]

Then: John Oliver may have crashed the FCC’s comments system:

On Sunday night, John Oliver dedicated much of Last Week Tonight With John Oliver to talking about net neutrality, particularly as it relates to some proposed rule changes by the FCC. On Monday morning, the FCC’s comments system went down. Coincidence? Well, the FCC isn’t eager to draw that particular line of cause-and-effect; according to Variety, an FCC spokeswoman would only confirm that the system was down for a few hours on Monday, adding that it was “unclear if the high volume was directly related to the John Oliver segment.”

Oh, sure. But if you watch the segment in question (it’s a long one, but it’s great), at around 11:15, Oliver puts up the FCC comments page URL, does away with fancy graphics, and directly implores Internet commenters to do his bidding:

Good evening, monsters. This may be the moment you’ve spent your whole lives training for. […] Ralph Macchio, you’ve been honing your skills—waxing cars and painting fences. Well guess what? Now it’s time to do some fucking karate. For once in your life, we need you to challenge that anger—that badly spelled bile—that you normally reserve for unforgivable attacks on actresses you seem to think have put on weight. Or politicians you disagree with. Or photos of your ex-girlfriend getting on with her life. Or non-white actors being cast as fictional characters. […] We need you to get out there, and for once in your lives, focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction. Seize your moment, my lovely trolls. Turn on caps lock and fly, my pretties, fly!

A good encapsulation of net neutrality might throw some people into a frenzy of action—and the video has gone somewhat viral, with over 700,000 pageviews. But a call to action for the trolls, lurkers, commenters, and overly opinionated writers of the online world? Yeah, we can see how that might bring down a website or two.

http://www.avclub.com/article/john-oliv ... tem-205345

4Life · Post by **4Life** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:13 pm

I saw this the other night and loved it - glad you brought it up.

My favorite part was when he said

Yes, Bank of America took my home,
Yes, Taco Bell gave me diarrhea
And sure, GM tried to kill me
But Comcast and Time Warner are the Worst!

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:14 pm

frightened what will happen if the fcc implements those new rules to satisfy the internet providers. it's literally the GOP, comcast/time warner/cox/etc./fcc vs. the entire rest of the world right now. things wouldn't change right away, but i can imagine a world in 5 years if these regulations are passed where in order to not have 2002 dsl speed (in 2019) while accessing goazcats or amazon or something, you need to pay for your internet like you do for satellite tv packages. basic slow speed internet is $50 a month, plus the $10 high speed amazon/netflix package, plus $10 for the high speed google/facebook/twitter package, etc.. etc.. until your internet bill is $150 a month for you to just get all the websites you normally go to at a regular/decent internet speed.

4Life · Post by **4Life** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:19 pm

I can see everyone buying into it -

Only, they will get something like the scene in Idiocracy when he is watching TV and all the ads are on the side. That.

pokinmik · Post by **pokinmik** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:12 am

Nice, thanks for posting this DZ. I saw the show and loved this segment, Oliver pwned the cable companies. I had no idea Comcast spent the 2nd most lobbying behind Northrup...insanity.

Daryl Zero · Post by **Daryl Zero** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 8:19 pm

I encourage everyone to place their comments on the FCC site: http://www.fcc.gov/comments

This is a war that might be won.

Seize your moment, my lovely trolls. Turn on caps lock and fly, my pretties, fly! -- John Oliver

Alieberman · Post by **Alieberman** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:58 pm

Ted Cruz calls Net Neutrality "Obamacare for the Internet"

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:05 am

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairm ... eutrality/

After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.

Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public’s great benefit.

PieceOfMeat · Post by **PieceOfMeat** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:03 pm

internet should be classified a utility

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:30 am

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... -fcc-board

The Federal Communications Commission approved the policy known as net neutrality by a 3-2 vote at its Thursday meeting, with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying the policy will ensure "that no one — whether government or corporate — should control free open access to the Internet."

The policy helps to decide an essential question about how the Internet works, requiring service providers to be a neutral gateway instead of handling different types of Internet traffic in different ways — and at different costs.

"Today is a red-letter day," Wheeler said later.

The dissenting votes came from Michael O'Rielly and Ajut Pai, Republicans who warned that the FCC was overstepping its authority and interfering in commerce to solve a problem that doesn't exist. They also complained that the measure's 300-plus pages weren't publicly released or openly debated.

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:32 am

FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For 'Open Internet'

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... -fcc-board

The Federal Communications Commission approved the policy known as net neutrality by a 3-2 vote at its Thursday meeting, with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying the policy will ensure "that no one — whether government or corporate — should control free open access to the Internet."

The policy helps to decide an essential question about how the Internet works, requiring service providers to be a neutral gateway instead of handling different types of Internet traffic in different ways — and at different costs.

"Today is a red-letter day," Wheeler said later.

The dissenting votes came from Michael O'Rielly and Ajut Pai, Republicans who warned that the FCC was overstepping its authority and interfering in commerce to solve a problem that doesn't exist. They also complained that the measure's 300-plus pages weren't publicly released or openly debated.

Our original post continues:

The new policy would replace a prior version adopted in 2010 — but that was put on hold following a legal challenge by Verizon. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled last year that the FCC did not have sufficient regulatory power over broadband.

After that ruling, the FCC was left to reclassify broadband in a way to gain broader regulatory powers.

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:35 am

In Net Neutrality Victory, F.C.C. Classifies Broadband Internet Service as a Public Utility

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/techn ... .html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to regulate broadband Internet service as a public utility, a milestone in regulating high-speed Internet service into American homes.

The new rules, approved 3 to 2 along party lines, are intended to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for Internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else. Those prohibitions are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept.

Mobile data service for smartphones and tablets is being placed under the new rules. The order also includes provisions to protect consumer privacy and to ensure Internet service is available for people with disabilities and in remote areas.

The F.C.C. is taking this big regulatory step by reclassifying high-speed Internet service as a telecommunications service, instead of an information service, under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The Title II classification comes from the phone company era, treating service as a public utility.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:27 pm

amazing victory for the internet and freedom today. great news.

not surprising the two dissenting votes were republican.

scumdevils86 · Post by **scumdevils86** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:35 pm

Can isp's still limit the amount of "internet" or data you use?

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:38 pm

meanwhile on fox news...

www.foxnews.com

obama is evil!

pokinmik · Post by **pokinmik** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:18 pm

This quote is hilarious, from the main article on Fox News:

"The Obama Administration needs to get beyond its 1930s rotary-telephone mindset and embrace the future," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement.

More: "But Democrats on the commission hailed the plan. To charges that the plan represents a secret scheme to regulate the Internet, Wheeler said: "Nonsense."

He claimed it was no more a plan to regulate the Internet "than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech."

Republicans literally make no sense on anything. They might as well be scum-sucking lawyers paid to represent a baby rapist or something; just lying thru their teeth on behalf of the cable companies. It's obvious the majority of the republican base has no idea what their favorite politicans really stand for.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:24 pm

i like how the far right and fox news are all abuzz about how this ruling means that obama and the gubmint is now going to rule the internet with an iron fist and that there are going to be all kinds of secret taxes and price increases to satisfy obama's dictatorial sensibilities.

or...it just means that this is a blow to big telecom and it makes the lobbyists and companies that back the republicans super mad and now the internet can be better than ever before.

84Cat · Post by **84Cat** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:29 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:i like how the far right and fox news are all abuzz about how this ruling means that obama and the gubmint is now going to rule the internet with an iron fist and that there are going to be all kinds of secret taxes and price increases to satisfy obama's dictatorial sensibilities.

or...it just means that this is a blow to big telecom and it makes the lobbyists and companies that back the republicans super mad and now the internet can be better than ever before.

I was reading the comments a few days ago on cnet and they were overrun by people saying this is going to stifle innovation, blah, blah, blah. No doubt most were paid commenters from comcast and the like.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:41 pm

According to Republicans, not only are corporations people, but they should be the only protected class.

PieceOfMeat · Post by **PieceOfMeat** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:50 pm

I wonder how many years in the courts this will be spending.

doubt anything changes any time soon.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:56 pm

well it may still go to courts, but it prevents big telecom from making anything currently worse.

84Cat · Post by **84Cat** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:58 pm

PieceOfMeat wrote:I wonder how many years in the courts this will be spending.

doubt anything changes any time soon.

Gives Google time to make Google fiber a reality for everyone and then big cable is screwed anyway.

PieceOfMeat · Post by **PieceOfMeat** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:29 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:well it may still go to courts, but it prevents big telecom from making anything currently worse.

what if the next pres is a republican? i'd bet there'd be a bill whipped up and passed real quick that would put this ruling out to pasture.

84Cat wrote: Gives Google time to make Google fiber a reality for everyone and then big cable is screwed anyway.

They're way too slow to be of much impact. They're not even hitting phoenix like was originally rumored. For them to get to most major cities would take decades.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:31 pm

well this ruling by the fcc is as good as law (actually is a law...was given that power by congress) so i'm not sure how that would change things in the future if republicans win.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:36 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:well this ruling by the fcc is as good as law (actually is a law...was given that power by congress) so i'm not sure how that would change things in the future if republicans win.

Are FCC board members appointed like SCOTUS?

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:43 pm

appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate

Salty · Post by **Salty** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:54 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:well this ruling by the fcc is as good as law (actually is a law...was given that power by congress) so i'm not sure how that would change things in the future if republicans win.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/technol ... index.html

The new rules, known as "net neutrality," act to provide equal opportunity for Internet speeds and access to websites.

The central question was whether network owners -- like Comcast (CMCSA) or Time Warner Cable (TWC) -- can discriminate what runs on their cables. The FCC's answer on Thursday was: No.

The Democratic-led commission approved 3-to-2, split along party lines, to assert extra government authority over the Internet.

Now for the wild claims on both sides: "We saved the Internet!" or "We've destroyed it with government bureaucracy!"

Don't believe the hype. Take a deep breath. It's a long, tricky road ahead.

The FCC rules won't be official until maybe summertime. Then major telecom companies will challenge new rules in court. A judge might put the rules rules on hold. The next president, if Republican, could let this fizzle away.

That's why, in the near term, nothing changes. No, Netflix won't suddenly stream any faster. No, AT&T and Comcast won't abruptly stop laying down high-speed fiber cables in your neighborhood as retaliation. And yes, Netflix can still cut deals with broadband companies for faster access to a network.

So what just happened, exactly? The FCC just granted itself the power to defeat a raging, fire-breathing monster: the monopolistic network owners who can kill Internet freedom by blocking websites -- or by creating an Internet fast lane for the privileged, few, rich tech companies that can pay for it.

But this monster is actually a phantom menace. Sure, in the past, telecoms have been bullies. Verizon blocked Google Wallet. AT&T blocked video chatting apps. Comcast slowed down file-sharing services like BitTorrent. Rural telephone provider Madison River blocked Vonage's over-the-Internet phone calls. However, the FCC used existing rules to fix those problems.

The new rules essentially maintain the status quo. The Internet sure feels free today. It'll feel the same way tomorrow.

That's why some worry about how the FCC just ensured net neutrality. To enforce fairness rules, the agency will regulate network owners by scooping them up under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act, a specific set of regulations that apply to phone companies. Telecoms say the rules don't match the services they provide. They don't trust the FCC's promise that it will apply only a tiny fraction of those rules and won't regulate rates and increase taxes.

"Assurances like these don't tend to last very long," warned Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai. "Expect ... regulation to ratchet up as time goes on."

Meanwhile, Tom Wheeler, the FCC chairman who ditched his original dialed-back plan for this one, assured this isn't a government power grab.

"This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech," he said. "They both stand for the same concept: openness, expression and an absence of gatekeepers."

How did we start caring about this? Credit comedian John Oliver, who got enough viewers of his HBO show that a record 4 million Americans sent comments to the FCC.

He framed it from the point of view of the average person dealing with their Internet service provider. Plans are expensive, service is inexplicably spotty and you have little choice. Clearly, the network owners are the bad guys.

During Thursday's hearing, the testimony of those who spoke in favor of the FCC's new rules all took that populist tone. Etsy CEO Chad Dickerson thanked the FCC for "protecting the Internet as an engine for economic opportunity." Celebrated technologist Sir Tim Berners-Lee said this ensures modern entrepreneurs the same opportunity he had when he created the World Wide Web 26 years ago.

After the vote, President Obama issued this statement via Twitter: "Today's FCC decision will protect innovation and create a level playing field for the next generation of entrepreneurs."

But wait, there's a third option. As this fight makes its way through the courts, Congress has the opportunity to stand up and write rules that work too.

After all, both network owners and the websites that flow data through them have a point. Outright blocking and anti-competitive behavior is unfair and should be illegal. On the other hand, for technical reasons, network owners need to manage traffic. Your video stream needs to move faster than your email for your experience to feel smooth.

That's why critics call the Title II approach -- what the FCC did today -- a blunt instrument. But it's not clear that it's as wonderful -- or terrible -- as everyone says.

Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a technology policy think tank, laments how the conversation has spiraled out of control.

"This has become a debate about a false choice: letting carriers do whatever the heck they want and overly burdensome regulations," Atkinson said.

Try to keep up, hater.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:00 pm

huh? i never said anything that contradicts what that article says...

try to keep up saltsters.

Salty · Post by **Salty** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:04 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:huh? i never said anything that contradicts what that article says...

try to keep up saltsters.

Bolded part.

Bruins01 · Post by **Bruins01** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:13 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate

The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed and controlled by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Co ... Commission

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:14 pm

Salty wrote:
ASUHATER! wrote:huh? i never said anything that contradicts what that article says...

try to keep up saltsters.
Bolded part.

yup. didn't contradict any of the bolded parts.

Salty · Post by **Salty** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:27 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:
Salty wrote:
ASUHATER! wrote:huh? i never said anything that contradicts what that article says...

try to keep up saltsters.
Bolded part.
yup. didn't contradict any of the bolded parts.

Except, it did.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:30 pm

except, it didn't. keep up saltsters

but anyway, mark cuban is going bonkers over the decision and making up a bunch of whiny fake complaints like "how long until youtube and streaming internet videos are censored like network tv now!!"

(btw mark cuban is the chairman of a cable network..)

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:35 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:except, it didn't. keep up saltsters

but anyway, mark cuban is going bonkers over the decision and making up a bunch of whiny fake complaints like "how long until youtube and streaming internet videos are censored like network tv now!!"

(btw mark cuban is the chairman of a cable network..)

Cuban was also one of the founders of Broadcast.com (remember that?). They sold to Yahoo for $5.7BN.

He should remember those days.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:12 pm

fox news headline:

"CONTROLS ON 'NET Critics roar as FCC OK's Obama backed regulations"

sure to fire up the oldtimers. what? obama backed something? it must be evil!!!

Salty · Post by **Salty** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:14 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:except, it didn't. keep up saltsters

You said that you didn't understand how a republican president would impact this.

I showed that by the time the courts figure this out, a republican could be in office and this all would be irrelevant.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:18 pm

Salty wrote:
ASUHATER! wrote:except, it didn't. keep up saltsters
You said that you didn't understand how a republican president would impact this.

I showed that by the time the courts figure this out, a republican could be in office and this all would be irrelevant.

that's not what i said or meant....

Salty · Post by **Salty** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:39 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:
Salty wrote:
ASUHATER! wrote:except, it didn't. keep up saltsters
You said that you didn't understand how a republican president would impact this.

I showed that by the time the courts figure this out, a republican could be in office and this all would be irrelevant.
that's not what i said or meant....

It's ok to admit you're wrong.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:07 am

ASUHATER! wrote:fox news headline:

"CONTROLS ON 'NET Critics roar as FCC OK's Obama backed regulations"

sure to fire up the oldtimers. what? obama backed something? it must be evil!!!

Cable news backing cable companies. This is why Comcast buying media was bad.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:46 am

U.S. way behind on this issue. Slower and costs more. American exceptionalism!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upsho ... 0002&abg=0

Salty · Post by **Salty** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:32 pm

gumby wrote:U.S. way behind on this issue. Slower and costs more. American exceptionalism!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upsho ... 0002&abg=0

I think this has more to do with the fact that the United States installed interest technology over a decade ago, and that infrastructure is still being used. That was far before many of the other places had high speed internet.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:57 pm

Salty wrote:
gumby wrote:U.S. way behind on this issue. Slower and costs more. American exceptionalism!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upsho ... 0002&abg=0
I think this has more to do with the fact that the United States installed interest technology over a decade ago, and that infrastructure is still being used. That was far before many of the other places had high speed internet.

I think it's because of the reasons in the article. In the few places where competition exists, providers are getting off their duffs and improving infrastructure.

The big Internet providers have little reason to upgrade their entire networks to fiber because there has so far been little pressure from competitors or regulators to do so, said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and author of “Captive Audience: Telecom Monopolies in the New Gilded Age.”

There are signs of a growing movement for cities to build their own fiber networks and lease the fiber to retail Internet providers. Some, like San Antonio, already have fiber in place, but there are policies restricting them from using it to offer Internet services to consumers. Other cities, like Santa Monica, Calif., have been laying fiber during other construction projects.

In certain cities, the threat of new Internet providers has spurred the big, existing companies to do something novel: increase the speeds they offer and build up their own fiber networks.

Plus, your explanation doesn't cover why it costs American customers so much more.

Salty · Post by **Salty** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:37 pm

gumby wrote:
Salty wrote:
gumby wrote:U.S. way behind on this issue. Slower and costs more. American exceptionalism!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upsho ... 0002&abg=0
I think this has more to do with the fact that the United States installed interest technology over a decade ago, and that infrastructure is still being used. That was far before many of the other places had high speed internet.
I think it's because of the reasons in the article. In the few places where competition exists, providers are getting off their duffs and improving infrastructure.

The big Internet providers have little reason to upgrade their entire networks to fiber because there has so far been little pressure from competitors or regulators to do so, said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and author of “Captive Audience: Telecom Monopolies in the New Gilded Age.”

There are signs of a growing movement for cities to build their own fiber networks and lease the fiber to retail Internet providers. Some, like San Antonio, already have fiber in place, but there are policies restricting them from using it to offer Internet services to consumers. Other cities, like Santa Monica, Calif., have been laying fiber during other construction projects.

In certain cities, the threat of new Internet providers has spurred the big, existing companies to do something novel: increase the speeds they offer and build up their own fiber networks.
Plus, your explanation doesn't cover why it costs American customers so much more.

I think the explanations of the article cover why we haven't upgraded since the infrastructure was installed...

But most of the Internet infrastructure in this country was built before the dot com bubble burst. At that time, the United States was unquestionably the global leader in Internet speeds and access.

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:39 pm

Thanks a lot Al Gore!

The Butcher · Post by **The Butcher** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:05 pm

So did we win or lose? I still don't understand it. What the hell was I supposed to be hoping for?

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:43 pm

The Butcher wrote:So did we win or lose? I still don't understand it. What the hell was I supposed to be hoping for?

Big win. You were hoping for this ruling to prevent further monopolizing by big telecom and internet control and fast lanes by them. Will get challenged in court but it is a good win for now.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:44 pm

Salty wrote:
gumby wrote:
Salty wrote: But most of the Internet infrastructure in this country was built before the dot com bubble burst. At that time, the United States was unquestionably the global leader in Internet speeds and access.

And Spain once had the most powerful navy.

Salty · Post by **Salty** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:15 pm

gumby wrote:
Salty wrote:
gumby wrote:
Salty wrote: But most of the Internet infrastructure in this country was built before the dot com bubble burst. At that time, the United States was unquestionably the global leader in Internet speeds and access.
And Spain once had the most powerful navy.

Are you suggesting that the United States will lose its place as the only unquestioned superpower in the world because of... Internet speeds?

Yikes.

Bruins01 · Post by **Bruins01** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:20 pm

Every single time I inexplicably click the "display this post" link when salty writes something, I think, "holy sh*t, that is incredibly stupid." It is like clockwork.

Salty · Post by **Salty** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:25 pm

Bruins01 wrote:Every single time I inexplicably click the "display this post" when salty writes something, I think, "holy sh*t, that is incredibly stupid." It is like clockwork.

Every time you post anything, I think, "holy sh*t, that is incredibly stupid." It is like clockwork.

Login • Register