26 thoughts on “Net neutrality explained with beer

  • December 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    Permalink

    So leftists trust the federal government with everything but the internet? Education, healthcare, gun laws, etc… just not the internet? That seems a bit hypocritical. Not to mention, net neutrality does mean more government regulation on the internet, meaning she(and other leftists) is actually the one putting the fate of the internet in the hands of the government with net neutrality.
    Those are just my thoughts… I'm open to hear other ideas

    Reply
  • December 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    Permalink

    America is corrupt to the bottom of the glass. By the way it is the last mouthful that gives you the hangover.
    Blood on the streets and lamp posts is on its way. Read History…that’s where Aristocracies go to die.

    Reply
  • December 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    Permalink

    It will also create more paywalls to independent info through various means.

    Reply
  • December 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    Permalink

    To add more points to this:
    – You can order McCormick's vodka mixed with Coke, but the bartender has no obligation to serve you that. He can easily serve you cheaper vodka with watered down Sam's Cola. Yes, you can ask for the bartender to prepare the drink in front of you, but you have no idea if he already filled the bottles with the cheaper stuff.
    – Not only that, but as a bartender, he can easily consider that "drink" a 'premium drink' and charge you extra because he wants to do that and because there's no law nor regulation preventing him from doing that. If he used to do that before when Food and Health regulations prevented him from doing the practice, what's to stop him from doing it now that those regulations no longer exist?
    – NO-net-neutrality will not create more variety in the market because it's up to the bar owner and the bartender to serve whatever drinks they prefer, at the hours of business they desire. They can easily buy other small bars, just like they've been doing since they became the nightlife-sensation. Not only that, but they can partner-up a/o threaten rum distilleries, beer factories and wine vineyards with exclusivity. Considering how "Bar-name-here" bought all the bars in town, factories, distilleries and vineyards have no other choice but to sell them their products or risk bankruptcy. Now, these bars can achieve this method whether by giving them no choice but to cooperate, spreading false information about their products or making deals with their competitors.
    – Since "Bar-name-here" controls the alcohol industry, they can easily "ask" their alcohol producers to make exclusive content for them or use the same tactics that I gave on my previous point. In other words, they can manipulate who they sell to, what they sell to, when they sell and where they sell from. The alcohol industry will be subjected to the bar-business because they have no other way to make profit and stay afloat.

    I'm sure that there's countless more points and that someone can elaborate a lot more on this, but this is just a tiny information nugget that I thought could add a little bit more context.

    I'm not sure if the repeal will go through or not, considering how we don't have that much say in the matter, but getting rid of net-neutrality is an assured money-grab that benefits only the corporal class of the US. This goes way beyond politics, ideologies and philosophies. It's economic abuse out of everyone that doesn't have millions of dollars behind their name/entity. Keep researching, people.

    Reply
  • December 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    Permalink

    Libtard false analogy. Bars have preferences for the beer they stock that vary in costs, quality, and availability. Despite this, small breweries still have good market competitiveness against the mega-breweries, since the quality & nature of their products vary so much. It's not even the real source of the problem. The real problem is government's meddling that reduced the number of bars in the whole nation down to 2.

    Reply
  • December 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    Permalink

    I think Bridget's panty drawer would explain it better

    Reply
  • December 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    Permalink

    Using your analogy, if three is s complex drink that a few minutes to prepare, then it has to come the same speed as your beer or else! So to accomplish this they either need to wait a few minutes before they can start pouring you a beer or invest in new machines to speed up its production. These new machines cost money and since net neutrality can not charge people to get drinks faster they have to raise the price of all drinks including your beer. So either you will have to wait 5min for your beer or pay more for it..

    Reply
  • December 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    Permalink

    NEXT WEEK: Why writing for CNET is like getting drunk all day…illustrated.

    Reply
  • December 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    Permalink

    Drinking a cold one while watching Bridget explains net neutrality. Again the gov. kneeling to the corporations at the expense of the people.

    Reply
  • December 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    Permalink

    Yessssssssssss yessssssssssss hunteey …

    Reply
  • December 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    Permalink

    I remember seeing Bridget in 7th grade and falling in love. Sophomore year college and this lady is still hot as hell.

    Reply
  • December 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    Permalink

    But has your WiFi plan gotten better since net neutrality was implemented or your phone plans?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *