The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Net Neutrality Works
from the just-like-the-reporter,-the-tv-commentator-and-the-internet-commenter dept
Update: Please read our update on this story, The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Fair Use Works, explaining how one of the cartoonists parodied below has decided to send DMCA takedown notices.Earlier this week, the A Good Cartoon tumblr first posted a bunch of ridiculous and misleading political cartoons about net neutrality that showed zero understanding of net neutrality. And then the person behind the site remade many of those cartoons, but replaced the words in them with "the cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works!" For reasons unknown, the original Tumblr post that had all of them has been taken down, but many of the images are still viewable via John Hodgman's blog, and they're worth checking out. Here are just a few with some additional commentary (because how can I not provide some commentary...)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, cartoonist, fcc, net neutrality, political cartoons
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Either way FUD like this is spread all over the place and it is amazing to see and hear how much people believe it instead of seeing the cartoon and investigating more fully the matter to get real facts surrounding the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is the same with liberals and democrats. Zealots in the politically leaning press are hurting democracy by shortcirquiting facts in discussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Come on. If people could be interested in facts, they would not need elected representatives in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
- Winston Churchill (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually trying either one might actually be a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My poli-sci is rusty but I don't think those describe the same things.
I don't think it's that either. None of those for whom the people vote actually represent the will of their constituency. The US is a failed republic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My poli-sci is rusty but I don't think those describe the same things.
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Benjamin Franklin, answering a bystander upon departing the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My poli-sci is rusty but I don't think those describe the same things.
..for more than a couple hundred years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The implication is correct.
Since the land stays and the people stay, no matter how we organize them (or don't) we still cannot say whether the US is just plain an embarrassment. All the nations go through their phases of glory and shame, and this one is so very young.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The implication is correct.
And dollar bills are cheaper to print than glass beads were. And the dollar bills still are valuable because you can buy weapons and use them for stealing land and goods. It's just that nowadays we prefer supplying the thieves in other countries with weapons in return for a share in their spoils. So the dollar/weapon/goods circle has been globalized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The implication is correct.
Actually we're a bit beyond the historical average by this point... which is sad in its own way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I actually say: "You are too stupid to discern facts from spin."
But what I'm getting from you is that there is no point in me trying to be more polite. Results won't change.
Well, at least I'll save the effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
May as well give that over to the NSA,... Oh, basically they did.
If you do not understand our legitimate government; and you do not understand what is going on with those who serve within it now then how will you ever understand what the people are objecting to, and if they are correct to be worried - and they are.
File this somewhere and see if later down the road I am not correct. I will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're conflating two separate issues. Do you realize the pro-NN crowd - including EFF and ACLU - is and has been vehemently trying to push back against the NSA?
I suspect you'd say the same thing about phone companies if we were having this discussion in 1934.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Horrible historical irony.
That's even more retarded. These rules that they are fighting against are the same rules that reigned in the original telecom providers and allowed the Internet to flourish.
These people are collectively trying to saw off the branch they are sitting on right now.
I don't recall Reagan Republicans fighting this stuff like the Palin Republicans have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2) Voices of the American right heard from various media are indeed paid industry shills and yes, they are confused.
3) There is much confusion of incumbent's interests with constituent's interests on both sides of the aisle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”
Guess what? They "abridged" it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What part of Title II authority would let them censor content? Bearing in mind of course that we haven't actually seen the rules, but I have not seen anyone point out what part of this law would even permit the FCC to create rules that allowed them to censor what content is available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice
Rent-a-pen, conscience included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
Does it take 300 pages to define Net Neutrality?
Are you sure RIAA didn't get their grubby claws in this for suspending sites, servers or IP ranges that are accused of copyright violation. Anyone that runs an even semi-controversial facebook page or Youtube channel knows the annoyance of falsely accused copyright violations suspending their content or sometimes entire service until they prove they are innocent.
What I want is a full review of those 300 pages. Enough of the back and forth from people who don't know what it contains. Even supporters of net neutrality need to be concerned as to why it took 300 pages to define and why all the secrecy from "the most transparent administration in history" LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
No, it takes 8 pages. The rest are the *legally mandated* responses to comments.
Are you sure RIAA didn't get their grubby claws in this for suspending sites, servers or IP ranges that are accused of copyright violation. Anyone that runs an even semi-controversial facebook page or Youtube channel knows the annoyance of falsely accused copyright violations suspending their content or sometimes entire service until they prove they are innocent.
Indeed. As we've stated repeatedly, we are concerned about the details in the actual rules.
What I want is a full review of those 300 pages. Enough of the back and forth from people who don't know what it contains. Even supporters of net neutrality need to be concerned as to why it took 300 pages to define and why all the secrecy from "the most transparent administration in history" LOL
Except that it's not 300 pages, it's 8. So, really, you look silly when you keep saying 300 pages.
And, as has been made clear, the FCC can't release it yet because the two dissenters, Pai and O'Rielly have not provided their dissents, which needs to be included for the rules to be released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
That brings to mind something that I've been wondering, is it possible for them to essentially veto the entire vote on their own by simply refusing to ever submit their dissents, and therefor block the rules being made public? Are there rules in place where they have to submit their dissents by a certain point, or can they refuse and nullify the entire thing basically?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
Yes, they'll submit their defenses. They're trying to stall as long as possible to see if Congress can do something in the meantime, but they have to submit their dissents eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
For once, it's finally working for the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
With how they've been acting so far, I could totally see them putting the matter off for months, as they try and stall and whip up the people with horror stories about what's in the rules(leaving out the fact that they are the reason the rules aren't public yet), in hopes that that will drive people to tell their representatives to try and undercut the FCC on the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
So if the 8 pages and contradicted by a simple misstep in one of the 300, this could cause an issue legally, and I'm sure the lawyers are probably already drooling to take a look and offer services to company X. So while this is one of the things I absolutely hate about the US, it's also the reason that I'm sort of happy that the FCC is holding back on releasing anything, hoping that they will cross every t and dot every i.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
8 pages are new rules. 292 pages are responses to public interest comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
And I'm non-partisan -- but the amount of outright lying being done here and intentional misleading done for nothing else than the sake of the Republican party whims is even worse than the stuff that was being churned out that made the healthcare bill into something that nobody really wanted and didn't really accomplish the original goals.
Sure... there's compromise. These tactics aren't aimed at compromise, they're aimed at compromising the democratic system. It's disgusting, and displays an outright lack of ethics. So much for Republican traditional Christian values (yes, I went there, because they go there too).
The US needs to get a few new political parties that actually serve the people instead of multinational "American" corporations based in Ireland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
That you're right about privacy is not the point, AC. It's about connecting, and that's how it's done unless you want to end up in a circle jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
All political parties have to be able to show they can govern.
Normally how that is done is you show you can deliver something to the voters. Existing parties do this via the system "we" are "complaining" about. In places where things are really corrupt/broken groups like ISIS/Taliban are able to rise to power by being LESS broken than what they are replacing.
If the Pirate Party wants to show they can govern a project they can take on is court watching and gathering information on the broken actors in the legal system. Building out the software to organize watchers is well within the skill set and budget of the Pirate Party.
But actually *DOING* something beyond whining about how the system is broken isn't what the alternative political parties are about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"All political parties have to be able to show they can govern."
Ours is a sorry state in which the constituency don't get any actual representation.
Remember the USSR had their elections too, during their most totalitarian regimes. It gives a sense of legitimacy, like fuzzy dice dangling from your mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "All political parties have to be able to show they can govern."
Obviously they have otherwise they would have been replaced.
Like it or not, the wanna-be upstarts have not bothered with actual actions like setting up Court watching and therefore have not shown they can govern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That word: I don't think it means what you think it means.
I think the Federal Shutdown of 2013 illustrates my point. Neither party could prevent it and a subset of one party felt they had to resort to such measures to press their issue, and ultimately failed.
So, considering the definitions of governance that I understand (which, granted, may be a tad more idealistic than forcing-others-at-gunpoint-to-do-your-will) neither the DNC or the GOP are capable of governance at all. At best, they completely suck at it, considering their recent record of getting things done in accordance to their constituencies' wants / needs (e.g. not).
Also this notion that third parties cannot win seats because they cannot govern (or more accurately they cannot sell that they can govern) belies a dissmissal of the consequences of a first-past-the-post electoral system which largely encourages defensive voting. Even a perfect third party that could otherwise secure a plurality vote couldn't get elected since no one is willing to risk letting the other guy win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "All political parties have to be able to show they can govern."
Fuzzy dice give a sense of legitimacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuzzy dice and puppet dictatorships named "Deutsche Demokratische Republik"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
Since when?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
Your specific problems with government, law enforcement and security force corruption is endemic with your chosen political environment. Even though you have a basis for responsible government and law enforcement, that is your constitution and other various documents and its system of checks and balances, your basic attitudes are an actual hindrance to improving your society.
The most prominent of these is your innate sense of superiority to all others and that your way is the best and only way to do things. This basic arrogance, which is a fundamental blindness in you as a society, ensures that your continued walk to the precipice will end in you going over the edge.
This is a real pity as your nation was founded on principles that were outstanding. Your national attitudes give permission for all other nations to become more authoritarian and corrupt as you're becoming more so. You are no longer able to take the high ground because, as a nation, you are now visibly mired in the swamp of destitute corruption.
A simple example, your nation once accepted people from everywhere, encouraged them to be American and build a better life. But now, the descendent of those people have a terror of alien invaders, irrespective of political leanings. I remember the conflicts in the 70's and 80's over the involvement of foreign nationals in any and all technological developments. The fear that these alien invaders would take back to their nations all these American technological developments and innovations, which in fact were brought to American by these self same aliens.
/rant got better things to do now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because, obviously, all human evils stem from a single flawed property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because, obviously, all human evils stem from a single flawed property.
rest of comment deleted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
The erroneous "it's 300 pages" malarkey is a tactic to spread FUD. The remaining 292 pages are responses to comments submitted to the FCC (out of millions submitted).
Quit with this 300 pages nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
8 pages is an interesting thought.
"the 332-page Internet regulation plan"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-boa rd
The 317 page order, entitled Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, will take effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register, a process that’s expected to take several weeks.
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-votes-yes-net-neutrality/
It could be a little while before the FCC actually releases the new plan, which is more than 300 pages long.
http://recode.net/2015/02/26/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules-in-partisan-decision/
Now why do YOU keep saying 8 pages?
also interesting, seeings the FCC's press release alone on it was 5 pages.
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet
You keep on saying 8 pages. I do not think you know what that means. lol ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.
You keep on saying 8 pages. I do not think you know what that means. lol ;)
Why do I expect you to disappear and not admit that I'm right when the rules come out. Reporters are mis-reporting it because the dissenters Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly have been spreading this misinformation that you lapped up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.
Quite possibly.
Is there some magic that makes a major news org right because they are a major news source?
lol ;)
Does Laughing out Loud somehow make you more authoritative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.
The bigger a news agency, the less likely that it will ever call bullshit on the "powers that be" -- and that's why bloggers are so important for helping to spread the truth amid an ocean of misinformation.
Yet oddly enough, some people seem to think that these corporate whores (also known as the mainstram media) are somehow more trustworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.
^ this is actually more common than a Techdirt commenter looking silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
excuse the doubt of government reach
yet...
But you truly expect over 300 pages of answers to comments/questions to cover *nothing* that wasn't covered in the 8 pages?
Perhaps the proponent is minimizing and the opponents are overstating? Perhaps I heard nothing directly from the dissenting votes, merely multiple sources of media I linked... But that's ok, put those who disagree as 'lapping' their misinformation like a dog lapps up water.
Stay classy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: excuse the doubt of government reach
Hmm, I checked Mike's reply and didn't see anything about dogs. Is trying to put words into Mike's mouth the best you can do? Speaking of classy, that ain't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: excuse the doubt of government reach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Net Neutrality Works...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Credit where it's due.
So the admission of error counts for nothing here? How about amending the article to call this out?
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Credit where it's due.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Credit where it's due.
What admission of error?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Credit where it's due.
The person you are replying to here obviously got the same first impression. And it would make for a nice story: it's always nice if somebody admits to seeing the light after first getting something quite wrong.
Maybe reread your article under the assumption of this as the first interpretation and see whether you can snuff this interpretation early on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shills or idiots?
Actually, I think that I know the answer to that: both.
There are lots of low-information idiots to be found amongst the Tea Party votors -- people who have been conned into voting against their own interests. The Astroturfers are egging them on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History repeats itself .... Re. Net neutrality
For a start ......
http://pjmedia.com/blog/social-security-broken-promises/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_l ips:_no_new_taxes
http://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx
99guspu ppet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
network at fault or FCC downgraded itself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: network at fault or FCC downgraded itself
Wifi and DSL are not the same thing and the rate at which technology advances has nothing to do with Network Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: network at fault or FCC downgraded itself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright takedown demand by the original artist
...in 5...4...3...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transmission vs Content
Imagine you're talking to your sweetie when suddenly your conversation is interrupted by a 30-second commercial. You don't have to listen to the ad - you can always just hang up - but you've got a few more things to say, so you sit and stare blankly while that important announcement runs its course. You think about getting one of those ad-free phone lines, the kind that most businesses have, but they cost a little bit more.
Or imagine you've just received your monthly copy of Interesting Things. You dig into the five-pound box, stacking all the circulars and brochures into a neat pile for recycling. You finally uncover your magazine - at last! - and sit down for a good read. It crosses your mind (not for the first time) to upgrade your postal service to the sleeker Premium Delivery, but hey, you gotta sit on something while you're reading about interesting things, and that pile of junk is actually pretty comfy.
In this stupid imaginary world, the information carriers dictate the conditions of delivery, a two-tiered system where either you pay extra for the privilege of unmolested communications, or you accept the fact that the carriers have become a part of the conversation. They're not doing it out of meanness, or because they're diabolical, but because it's just good business sense. It's their phone lines, their postal routes, after all, and if they can defray the costs of their services by changing the terms of delivery a little bit, what harm?
Back here in the non-stupid real world, regulations prevent carriers from making perfect business sense. Regulations prevent them from charging both sender and receiver; regulations prevent them from inserting cost-defraying additions to the contents; regulations force them to spend money on reasonably adequate equipment. Is this fair? Is this equitable? You decide - but imagine what your communications would be like if controlled solely by the carriers' business decisions.
One of the biggest detriments to having a conversation about net neutrality - which is, ultimately, deciding how much these business decisions will impact communications - is summed up in these cartoons. They graphically show the fear that regulations will somehow interfere with content, when all published indications show the regulations will affect transmission. Or in other words, the regulations aren't messing with us; the regulations are messing with the carriers.
How much regulations will affect the internet is yet to be determined. Governments have a poor track record in reining in mission creep, and the urge to control is never far from their minds. But that's not what they're talking about right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transmission vs Content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This author has no idea how government works...
You have to be especially gullible to think the FCC won't do the same with Net Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This author has no idea how government works...
You say the FCC getting involved is a bad idea, due to the potential for mission creep, and I can agree that that would be a bad idea, but what alternative would you have suggested instead?
Even a lot of people here would probably agree, the FCC getting involved, and re-classification to Title II was not the ideal solution, but what it was was the best out of a bunch of bad options.
Would it have been nice if they hadn't needed to step in? Absolutely, but doing nothing clearly wasn't working at fixing the problem, and I don't think I've seen any other real fixes proposed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality Ignorance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheOatmeal.com Response
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This spectacle about the FCC is even more absurd. The rules that are 8 pages, with 292 pages of comments, is repeatedly misrepresented. Repeated derision about the public not being able to read the rules, but the reason we can't read them is the 2 GOP operatives are holding up the release. So, GOP prevents the release of the rules then ridicules the rules because they haven't been released. The rules prohibit ISPs from placing speed barriers on the net, but the GOP spreads FUD about speed barriers because of the rules. The absurdity is simply mind boggling and the GOP proves once again it simply cannot govern beyond the level of childish bullying and playground antics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Encourage your FCC Commissioners!
Ajit Pai
http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/ajit-pai-mail
Michael O’Rielly
http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/michael-orielly-mail
Ask them (nicely!) to please finish their work so the Net Neutrality rules can be released to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chip Bok is a huge baby
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Original tumblr post missing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Admission of guilt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this guy is putting lies in people's heads.
You just trying to take down Net Neutrality.
This should be the opposite of Tire 1.
I want to tell you a message what i told the telecoms.
This will be your future of Title 1.
Telecom cable companies.
You can find yourself when it.
Dies being shut out in a cold mine.
Ajit Pai going to take all you.
And one you telecom will be the victor.
Where i'm going to be at FreedomPop Days.
Watching you Telecom Die in the hell is a fire.
I know what's going happen AT&T.
They're going to get fired again.
Remember the day.
You should remember AT&T if your here.
The internet put you out of business.
I think the United States did that because what you have done on the internet.
But i can't believe my eyes.
Your back from the dead it's your true voice.
I don't forget AT&T what you have done.
But yes you're back from the dead thanks to net-neutrality.
You should hate my warning.
Cuz you might want to put them back in the grave.
What am i saying i on there side.
I don't want to use the backup l'll probably go to bellsouth when they defuse and die.
They will probably have to kiss time warner goodbye when it happens.
I know AT&T your soo Close to Time Warner.
And you're about to die again back in the clintons time.
Where they put you behind the grave.
And the rest of you small telecoms.
How sad the Angels trying to show you the way.
The Ajit pai is going to throw you back in the grave.
Where you belong out of business.
Probably for a year when donald is out the white house.
Be very scared Which Ajit Pai is going to release the monster.
Remember when they eat you alive.
Remember when you turn back to this page when you're out of business.
Say it.
I should have listened what have i done.
But yes.
It's already too late to save it.
You guys going to have your hands on your head.
Screaming for pain when he's doing wrong.
They're going to drive you mad out of business.
I remember hearing somebody saying in title one internet.
In the chat line saying stop it . Stop throttling me and blocking you FK.
Pay for the fast lane.
People say it doesn't matter were still going block throttled.
until you join my company ha.
Still wouldn't matter even if you're in the fast lane.
Others companies are still going to strike back at the fast lanes.
That are far superior than the weaklings.
This is what i'm trying to tell you small telecoms.
your going to be out of business.
There's only one Victor and you have to follow his rules.
Throughout the entire world. Ouch
And this is why i tell you.
Suck up to the strong victor.
1 victor in the entire. WORLD
That's why you should be afraid.
There is no justice in Title 1
Ask yourself.
What if he's right.
I am
Even if you don't want to defeat your victor Ajit Pai.
Will make it happen.
He bets for the game to win.
And yes this is what i told them and they got scared.
They should be scared cuz it is going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]