Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

11416181920

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    TimEisen said:
    Don't stop fighting or you might notice we're all losing! Power lies in the hands that divide.
    Truf!  Somehow, we surpassed the income inequality levels of ancient Rome and the Plebs hardly noticed..
    TierlessYashaX

    image
  • BrunlinBrunlin Member UncommonPosts: 79
    honestly, going as a followup to my earlier post...

    I don't care either way so neither decision effects me at all. Internet before 2015 was just as shitty as internet is today lol. I'm still limited to 1tb a month internet and they charge 50 dollars for every 50 gb over that.And before you say "WOW THAT IS A LOT"...no. WoW+ESO+GW2 install add up to a rather huge portion of the entire bandwidth limit (especially with 4 others in this house also using internet) due to patches and the actual game download and what not. Plus addons for WoW further take up bandwidth. Watching youtube and netflix takes up a lot of bandwidth...so 1tb gets used very easily.

    Internet today/yesterday is still as shitty as it was in the past. Still limited by bandwidth lol.


    Actually, in regards to your data limit, no one here would ever say that is a lot. I can blow up a TB in a few mins when downloading games. I hate data limits and regard them as archaic practices. 
    TheScavenger

    If at first you don’t succeed, call it version 1.0

  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    edited December 2017
    Brunlin said:

    Actually, in regards to your data limit, no one here would ever say that is a lot. I can blow up a TB in a few mins when downloading games. I hate data limits and regard them as archaic practices. 
    I think its to stop piraters, maybe. That or to save costs on bandwidth usage. But yeah, glad you agree :) It is so easy to just use up 1tb so quickly downloading/installing a bunch of games.

    However the annoying part really is they call it an unlimited bandwidth plan (or unlimited or whatever) and it really isn't. Which is stupid. They should call it the 1tb plan lol.

    That or make a 1tb plan and make a more expensive REAL unlimited plan...that would be great too.

    I'm moving in 3 months though, so we aren't really worrying about it that much. But hopefully where we end up they don't have that stupid 1tb limit crap (or worse). Or if they have a max bandwidth limit, at least don't call it unlimited lol.

    But like let us PAY for more bandwidth usage. Not charge us an expensive fee of 50 dollars for every 50gb over 1tb...thats dumb. We'd actually pay for more bandwidth if we could lol.

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • Sal1Sal1 Member UncommonPosts: 379
    The Republicans in the U.S.A. enacted this and want this. If you want something different vote for a Democrat. End of story.
    grimalMrMelGibsonBrunlin
  • Jamar870Jamar870 Member UncommonPosts: 457
    I did in the last election.

  • AlbatroesAlbatroes Member LegendaryPosts: 7,272
    So didn't it get repealed today or something 3:2 vote?
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    edited December 2017
    Albatroes said:
    So didn't it get repealed today or something 3:2 vote?
    Its going to the courts next. Some said Congress (on other sites), but it isn't a bill so congress/senate aren't involved. But it'll be fought out in the courts.

    The chance of it being stopped in the courts is VERY high. So it'll probably not be repealed at all.

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Member RarePosts: 5,484
    Albatroes said:
    So didn't it get repealed today or something 3:2 vote?
    Its going to the courts next. Some said Congress (on other sites), but it isn't a bill so congress/senate aren't involved. But it'll be fought out in the courts.

    The chance of it being stopped in the courts is VERY high. So it'll probably not be repealed at all.

    Nope. They'll shop courts until the find a friendly judge to issue an injunction, that won't matter because the regulations were never enforced anyway, but as soon as the FCC appeals it's going away. 

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo Possum. 

  • RenoakuRenoaku Member EpicPosts: 3,124
    Someone was telling me Net Neutrality gives control over to the government about what can be throttled and what cannot, and it was good not having it to begin with?
    MrMelGibson
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    edited December 2017
    I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

    Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

    Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.
    Asm0deusMrMelGibsonbartoni33
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

    Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

    Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.
    Actually, neither.

    If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

    However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

    Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

    Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

    So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all
    Asm0deusMrMelGibson

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,973
    Renoaku said:
    Someone was telling me Net Neutrality gives control over to the government about what can be throttled and what cannot, and it was good not having it to begin with?
    Now you know why it's as important to ensure your information is true as it is to get the news in the first place.
    [Deleted User]MrMelGibsonYashaX
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    edited December 2017
    Plus to add to the above though different subject I know...like I said...with my one crappy internet provider, I still get a 1tb limit despite being on "unlimited", but it really isn't unlimited but a 1tb plan...which is false advertising rofl. Its the best and most expensive plan my ISP has. Dunno how they get away with that, and that was way before this passed obviously. Like, installing a few MMOs adds up to a large portion of the bandwidth. I already almost have 200gb used in past 30 days cause of ESO+BDO+youtube/chrome...so lame.

    There needs to be more competition with these providers. Right now, ISPs have almost no competition. They have a monopoly. 

    But as I said above, equally as bad as ISPs controlling things, is the government having control of the internet. As seen by Europe and Venezuela.

    There needs to be a 3rd option. But to start with, definitely more competition and a lot more actual choices to choose from to pick for internet. Not 1-3 choices per area lol.

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

    Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

    Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.
    Actually, neither.

    If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

    However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

    Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

    Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

    So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all
    [Deleted User]Asm0deusMrMelGibsonYashaXlaseritbartoni33
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

    Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

    Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.
    Actually, neither.

    If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

    However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

    Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

    Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

    So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all
    If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.

    If you think ISPs should have control, that is just as bad as well since having a monopoly is never good for competition or making a better internet, though the government still really controls the ISPs so its not that big a difference. 

    So as I said, needs to be a 3rd choice. The internet shouldn't be owned by the government, nor owned by a monopoly of very few large internet companies.
    Asm0deusMrMelGibsonYashaXLeiloni

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,060
    Net Neutality has nothing to do with censorship.

    It didn't give control of the internet to the government, it just made sure the ISPs didn't have control either.

    But, it's all history now.
    frostymugFlyByKnightTorval[Deleted User]Asm0deusMrMelGibsonkjempffYashaXAvarixbartoni33
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    edited December 2017
    I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

    Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

    Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.
    Actually, neither.

    If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

    However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

    Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

    Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

    So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all
    If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.

    If you think ISPs should have control, that is just as bad as well since having a monopoly is never good for competition or making a better internet, though the government still really controls the ISPs so its not that big a difference. 

    So as I said, needs to be a 3rd choice. The internet shouldn't be owned by the government, nor owned by a monopoly of very few large internet companies.
    I wonder how that 3rd option would work?

    Perhaps a group of consumers get together, maybe think of some rules, perhaps enforce them? But how though? It's a brilliant idea, just don't think society is advanced enough. We'd have to name it too. Hmmmm... what would you call it when a social group comes together to govern rules and regulations that maintain balance and fairness? Ugh, it's too hard. Never mind. 

    Maybe somebodies religious deity could create the Immaculate Infrastructure?
    YashaX
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • frostymugfrostymug Member RarePosts: 643
    Ridelynn said:
    Net Neutality has nothing to do with censorship.

    It didn't give control of the internet to the government, it just made sure the ISPs didn't have control either.

    But, it's all history now.
    This can't be said enough, but apparently it doesn't get through the tin foil hats.

    Net Neutrality does not in any way mean the government controls the internet. It means that it is regulated by the government. Much in the same way that safety standards were introduced in the automobile industry, but the government still isn't in the business of making cars. 

    There is no free market for high speed ISPs in America. As of the last census, only 20% of residential areas had even 2 choices for 25mb down. First, that isn't really very high speed by current standards. Second, that choice ain't much of a choice at all. 50% had a single choice and 30% still had no choice at all. Having multiple providers across the country means jack if there is no competition locally.

    The concept of a free market requires viable consumer options. There aren't any in 80% of residential areas. 
    Avarixbartoni33
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    edited December 2017
    I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

    Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

    Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.
    Actually, neither.

    If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

    However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

    Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

    Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

    So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all
    If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.

    If you think ISPs should have control, that is just as bad as well since having a monopoly is never good for competition or making a better internet, though the government still really controls the ISPs so its not that big a difference. 

    So as I said, needs to be a 3rd choice. The internet shouldn't be owned by the government, nor owned by a monopoly of very few large internet companies.
    I wonder how that 3rd option would work?

    Perhaps a group of consumers get together, maybe think of some rules, perhaps enforce them? But how though? It's a brilliant idea, just don't think society is advanced enough. We'd have to name it too. Hmmmm... what would you call it when a social group comes together to govern rules and regulations that maintain balance and fairness? Ugh, it's too hard. Never mind. 

    Maybe somebodies religious deity could create the Immaculate Infrastructure?
    let 4chan and Goon Squad/Swarm create it...rofl

    no don't...

    xD

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Member RarePosts: 5,484
    I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

    Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

    Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.
    Actually, neither.

    If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

    However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

    Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

    Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

    So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all
    If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.

    If you think ISPs should have control, that is just as bad as well since having a monopoly is never good for competition or making a better internet, though the government still really controls the ISPs so its not that big a difference. 

    So as I said, needs to be a 3rd choice. The internet shouldn't be owned by the government, nor owned by a monopoly of very few large internet companies.

    The internet isn't a natural monopoly. There are currently several methods of accessing it and soon there may be more. The biggest problem right now is uneven distribution and that could be fixed with a program much like the rural electrification act in 1936. It was one of the new deal programs that actually did what it was supposed to do. 

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo Possum. 

  • JDis25JDis25 Member RarePosts: 1,351
    The internet is about the only thing in the world that is running fine... there is nothing to fix so it's clear this is going to make everything worse.
    [Deleted User]MrMelGibsonYashaX
    Now Playing: Bless / Summoners War
    Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
  • Jamar870Jamar870 Member UncommonPosts: 457
    What people I heard from want from net neutrality is for ISPs to provide just the connection and not determined wether one site or another gets priority or becomes censored.  Also some of the ISPs here are content providers ie..Comcast for one. They may in the future want to maybe throttle or charge more for you to stream from Netflix, Hulu, etc......  So I'm for the net neutrality to stay and not be repealed

    Asm0deusMrMelGibsonsomeforumguy
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,852
    I have not delved into what this Net neutrality is all about,i have no idea but if government is involved,i am scared,there can be no good,only ways to grind more money out of the people.

    Lobbyists partially run the government,their money is nothing more than bribes to achieve a rotten agenda to scam the tax payer.So you can bet,if some business"like the giant internet providers" wants to make more money,they are lobbying the government for changes.
    Asm0deusYashaX

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

    Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

    Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.
    Obviously, the government.  Politicians do eventually cave if enough of their constituency assures them that they will not get their vote unless said action is taken.  But if the only two ISPs in your area are Comcast and AT&T, and they're both fucking you with their fastlane bullshit or whatever other throttling scheme they come up with, what are your options?  You basically have the option of having internet service while getting sodomized by one of those two or not having internet service.  And there's nothing you can do about it ... except, of course, appeal to the only entity capable of stopping them ... and who could that be?  Oh my, it's that evil government! :open_mouth:
    And then that's when the billion dollar ISPs do this:
    1. Mo Brooks, Alabama, $26,000
    2. Ron Estes, Kansas, $13,807
    3. Thomas Massie, Kentucky, $25,000
    4. Ralph Norman, South Carolina, $15,050
    5. John Moolenaar, Michigan, $25,000
    6. Neal Dunn, Florida, $18,500
    7. Mike Bishop, Michigan, $68,250
    8. Alex Mooney, West Virginia, $17,750
    9. Glenn “GT” Thompson, Pennsylvania, $70,500
    10. Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri, $105,000
    11. Paul Gosar, Arizona, $12,250
    12. Richard W. Allen, Georgia, $24,250
    13. Kevin Cramer, North Dakota, $168,500
    14. Greg Walden, Oregon, $1,605,986
    15. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee, $600,999
    16. Billy Long, Missouri, $221,500
    17. Gregg Harper, Mississippi, $245,200
    18. Brett Guthrie, Kentucky, $398,500
    19. Bill Johnson, Ohio, $196,666
    20. Jeff Duncan, South Carolina, $41,830
    21. Earl “Buddy” Carter, Georgia, $39,250
    22. Susan Brooks, Indiana, $168,500
    23. Gus Bilirakis, Florida, $234,400
    24. Markwayne Mullin, Oklahoma, $141,750
    25. Mimi Walters, California, $161,500
    26. Joe Barton, Texas, $1,262,757
    27. Bill Flores, Texas, $127,500
    28. Pete Olson, Texas, $220,500
    29. Morgan Griffith, Virginia, $198,900
    30. Tim Walberg, Michigan, $131,850
    31. Fred Upton, Michigan, $1,590,125
    32. Joe Wilson, South Carolina, $104,750
    33. Martha McSally, Arizona, $84,936
    34. Blake Farenthold, Texas, $64,250
    35. Steve Womack, Arkansas, $104,750
    36. Tom Marino, Pennsylvania, $130,700
    37. Louie Gohmert, Texas, $85,055
    38. Walter Jones, North Carolina, $72,800
    39. Leonard Lance, New Jersey, $290,550
    40. Steve Chabot, Ohio, $332,083
    41. Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, $815,099
    42. Andy Biggs, Arizona, $19,500
    43. Mark Walker, North Carolina, $35,750
    44. Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, $21,200
    45. Ken Buck, Colorado, $79,350
    46. Larry Bucshon, Indiana, $71,750
    47. Chuck Fleischmann, Tennessee, $42,00
    48. David Rouzer, North Carolina, $34,300
    49. Paul Mitchell, Michigan, $18,000
    50. Hal Rogers, Kentucky, $360,450
    51. Doug Collins, Georgia, $103,600
    52. Ralph Abraham, Louisiana, $27,300
    53. Mark Meadows, North Carolina, $14,500
    54. Michael McCaul, Texas, $216,500
    55. Jeb Hensarling, Texas, $270,198
    56. Mike Simpson, Idaho, $125,200
    57. Tom Emmer, Minnesota, $28,500
    58. Randy Weber, Texas, $13,750
    59. Rob Woodall, Georgia, $60,250
    60. Ted Budd, North Carolina, $15,500
    61. Ken Calvert, California, $219,212
    62. Diane Black, Tennessee, $104,750
    63. Virginia Foxx, North Carolina, $115,700
    64. Sam Johnson, Texas, $219,785
    65. James Comer, Kentucky, $22,750
    66. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, $83,250
    67. Lamar Smith, Texas, $810,462
    68. Steven A King, Iowa, $210,810
    69. George Holding, North Carolina, $97,750
    70. Rob Wittman, Virginia, $57,250
    71. John Lee Ratcliffe, Texas, $53,950
    72. Jason Lewis, Minnesota, $21,050
    73. Jim Banks, Indiana, $16,303
    74. Bill Huizenga, Michigan, $34,000
    75. Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania, $202,500
    76. Steven Russell, Oklahoma, $23,500
    77. Adrian Smith, Nebraska, $165,834
    78. Jody B Hice, Georgia, $21,000
    79. Richard Hudson, North Carolina, $136,750
    80. Douglas L Lamborn, Colorado, $110,543
    81. Chris Collins, New York, $151,060
    82. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, Washington, $673,530
    83. Brad Wenstrup, Ohio, $33,750
    84. Andy Barr, Kentucky, $51,100
    MrMelGibsonYashaXbartoni33
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    I still think the courts can block it. There are heavy weights (Google, Netflix, Amazon and etc) that want to fight it, along with politicians. I think there is a VERY high chance that this won't be a thing at all. But guess we'll see.

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



This discussion has been closed.