Neither has most of the countries in the America's. I do agree that, that God comment is a massive cop out.

Then your ignoring the loads of court cases against ISPs since the early 2000's for treating information different. Comcast blocking Peer-to-Peer in 2005, Telus blocking access to a server promoting a labor strike against itself, AT&T blocking skype and other services because it competing with the IPhone in 2007, Windstream redirecting anyone trying to go to Google to its own search bar in 2010, METRO PCS blocking video streaming over 4G networks in 2011, AT&T/Sprint/Verizon all blocking Google Wallet in 2011 because it competed with their own mobile payment system Isis, AT&T blocking FaceTime unless people bought a more expensive phone plan, and a Nationwide slowdown of access to Netflix by AT&T/Timewarner/Verizon in 2013 which the FCC shut down. So uh... yeah. Guess I can only say, pay more attention? Yes, thats what an Oligopoly is. They agree to keep prices inflated, but roughly equal, so there isnt any "real" competition. Because Verizon and AT&T have services similar to Netflix. Such as AT&Ts Direct Now streaming service, or Time Warner Cables Spectrum streaming service. They launched these services to compete with Netflix, yet also own the roads on which people must travel to get to Netflix. (The internet). So they can, now, slow down all traffic to Netflix but not their own service, driving people to their service. Basically, Netflix isnt in the ISP business, but the ISPs are in the streaming business. They would. And before NN had ALOT OF PROBLEMS There could be, but they wont use it. You are acting like the ISPs care about the consumer. They dont. They care about making money, so they will use the tactic that makes them the most money. They have grown ALOT in 10 years. They have produced 3 feature length movies, have hundreds of employees and are, quite literally, competing with Netflix and HBO. Yes, they are still small compared to them, but they are in the same category of streaming services. Lookem up. Their most recent production, Gen:Lock has people like Michael B. Jordan, David Tennant, Maise Williams and so on. They can get big name actors like those for their projects. Thats how big they have become. I was trying to show you why the law was implemented. Those infractions are what made the FCC and others go "Yeah, this is a good idea, lets do it." And yes, the NN regulations classified the Internet as a Common Carrier, which is a Title 2 Utility just like Electricity. With those removed, it is no longer a Utility. This. Is. Bad.

I dont understand how you can hope to judge the authenticity of a location without any experience with said location. You have nothing to judge. Zero evidence to support your decision. Absolutely no reasoning to back up the assertions "this location is not British", because you have no idea what the location is actually like. At this point, this is just an argument about ethno-nationalism. Those who agree with it, you, vs everyone else. I get the feeling you would be much happier in 18th century America than present day.

You have a very focused view of what it means to be British. "Not just white" implies you have to be white plus something else, to be British. By definition of how this relationship works, that implies that Black people cannot be British. Ethno-nationalism and Racism go hand in hand dude. You can without a doubt experience a culture via music, literature, etc. I agree on that. But what you talking about isn't whether or not you can experience a culture, your trying to apply this experienced culture to a location you have never been. You are trying to say "I listen to British music and watch British films and read British books, and so I know that London is not a British city because it does not match this culture". The problem here is, you have never been to London, so you have no idea whether it actually matches the culture you have experienced. Im not saying you have to be in England to experience its culture. Your allowed to speak on its culture. I am saying you cannot judge the authenticity of a British city without actually going to the city. Speaking on culture and judging the authenticity of said culture in a specific area are two very different things. You can do the first, but without visiting the location, you cannot do the second. Its like judging a restaurant on its food. I don't care how accomplished a Chef you are, until you actually go and eat at the restaurant, you cannot judge it.

Im just waiting for the DNC to try and rig this election in regards to what candidates move on to the mid terms to. Assuming the Primaries arnt done with. Dont think they are? That would be hilarious, and probably the death of the party.

1) Your "Authentic" american comment and the "black people cant be british" extrapolation of your response to not even all white people in england are britain, are so close to racist, I think its safe to just classify it as such. My god. 2) Yes, I think it is necessary to actually visit a British city, if you want to comment on what does and does not feel like a British city. If you have never set foot in England, in any British City, then you cannot say "London does not feel authentically British". Flat out. Just like how I cannot say Hong Kong does not feel Authentically Chinese, because I have never experienced an authentic chinese city.

What question? About British news? I read BBC daily, so yes.

Except of course Netflix isnt the one making active use of the line. Consumers requesting Netflix are. Its not Netflix's fault they are popular. You are, once again, punishing them for being to big. I already touched on this, yet for some reason you think I didnt? And yes, laying new lines is an issue. If they came out and said that, and actually invested in new lines instead of going out of their way to shut down competition like Google Fiber, then maybe I would be more caring about their problems. But they don't care about that. They only care about squeezing out money. If you look back, you will see that wherever Google Fiber got laid down, all of the competition in that area upped their speeds and prices to try to compete. They went out of their way to try and prevent it, because it made them look bad. Net Neutrality is, for the consumer, the 100% better choice. It's not even a contest. I recognize the growing issue of laying down new lines, yet there is also the growing technologies, such as Satellite internet, that will one day, with proper research, hopefully render landlines obsolete. Finally, of course they could collect data before. But now they are allowed to collect more. Net Neutrality included rules on it, limiting it. Now there are none.

Yeah, but your known for liberal lefty things.

The fact that me and Cubarey are on the same side for once on this should tell you that this isn't just a liberal lefty thing. This is just you.

It was a utility. The Net Neutrality regulations that Ajit Pai repealed made the internet a Common Carrier utility like Landline Phones or Electricity. Meaning that you had to charge based on the amount of data flowing through the line, and you could not charge based on the content of that data. By repealing it, the FCC says that ISPs are now allowed to charge different amounts for the same amount of data, based on the contents of that data or where it is coming from. Now you may ask, how are they charging based on amount of data? Simple. There are multiple plans from ISPs. Some have gigabyte caps, saying once you DL a certain amount, they throttle your net and turn it off or charge you for going over. This is fine, its a contract you signed, no problem here. Most contracts though are for a set rate. I pay more than the above contract for unlimited data with a guaranteed minimum speed. With this Title 2 Classification remove, ISPs can now do 2 things. 1) They can charge you different amounts based on where the data is coming from. For instance, they can say they will credit your account with "half as much data traffic" if you use their streaming services in place of their competitors. 2) They can slow speeds to competing services if you have the 2nd type of contract. Now you may ask, why is this a problem? They should be able to offer incentives to their customers. Its simple. ISPs have a monopoly all across this country. A good number of regions have 1 ISP they can pick from, or 2 who form an oligopoly and agree to set similar, non-competing prices. Since you have nowhere else to go, they are guaranteed your business, and can hamstring you with impunity, forcing you to their services and severely impacting all competition in those spheres. Also, since they are now allowed to look at your data and charge based on where it is coming from and what is in it, charging you different amounts for if its a gaming service or streaming service or social media, that means they can look at what you are doing. They can datamine you and your internet usage and sell that information. Guess what legislation also stopped that? Ill let you take a wild guess. Effectively, you are handing them monopolies on a silver platter and you don't care. You want the Internet to be a Utility? So do I. Thats what Net Neutrality did and its what the FCC took away. tl;dr Ajit Pai and the current FCC are blatantly anti-consumer, and I would bet my savings that Ajit Pai is getting paid or has something lined up once his time in politics is done. This is all, mostly, correct. The problem is companies selling what they do not have. They guarantee 10mb speeds for everyone in an apartment, under the assumption that it will not always be in use. Its the exact same thing as Airlines selling more tickets than they have, because they know some will cancel or not show up or miss their flight. They oversell what their line can actually handle, because excluding weird circumstances, no one will notice. (Go go Google Fiber, until Verizon and other ISPs shut it down because it was better than anything they provide. So glad our FCC chair supports them). You want to fix that I am all for it. I agree with you. But "fast Lanes" is just prioritizing one users data experience over everyone else because they pay for it. It harms it because how do you expect a mom and pop shop to pay for the upkeep of letting people access their site in a timely manner? Its an additional expenditure on starting an internet business. One they have to pay if they want the browsing experience on their site to be up to par. Rooster Teeth. They are now competing with Netflix and HBO in terms of scale and have multiple youtube channels also releasing on their website. They are looking to add more and more, while also having exclusive content for subscribers to their service. Its moving up very quickly. I am quite proud of them. Go Go Texas. The new law is better because it actually exists. It classified the Internet as a Title 2 Common Carrier Utility like Electricity and Phone Lines Its the same vein. Also enjoy Warframe. Good game.

As for why its an ignorant statement, its simple. You do not charge a storefront because a lot of people are using the road to get there. Youtube does not send data out. Users go to it, and request it, and then it responds. Its on the user how they use their data, the internet they are paying for. Youtubes website, which they pay to host, is just a front-end api for their servers. A user goes to the hosted website, clicks a button, requests a video from Youtubes servers (which they pay for and upkeep), and then using their internet the user downloads the video. You are acting like Youtube is taking up space on the wire, when thats not how internet transmissions work. The information flowing down a wire is only what a user is requesting be sent to them. If that happens to be Youtube, that means that Youtube is popular. What you are asking to do is to turn every street in the world into a toll-road and then expecting the companies on the side's of the street to foot the bill for the consumers driving on it. Thats so idiotic and anti-consumer, I have tot believe you just don't know how it works, because otherwise you just hate the public. Your basically asking Walmart to pay for all of the roads in a town because people like to use it. Do you not see how prohibitive that is to startups? How much that will HARM competition, which you so desperately want? By doing this, you ensure that only the companies that can afford to exist, will. Destroying all mom and pop websites.

Yeah. And internet isn't like electricity in any way. Twitter and Facebook and Youtube pay for their own storage space. They buy their own servers and pay for the electricty to afford them. They pay to put up a sign on the google streetcorner and get people to come to their website. Its the individual customers, using the internet they bought, who choose to visit the website. Why should Twitter and Facebook and Youtube have to pay more because people choose to visit them? How a customer uses their internet is up to them, not the companies. How do you think the internet works? The user queries the service, and using their allotted speed, pulls from that service's server. The service is the one being requested here. They should not be paying for the roads someone else uses to get to them. Requiring companies to pay for "fast lanes" like what Ajit Pai wants will STIFLE internet startups. It makes it prohibitively difficult for a startup to come about. It DIRECTLY HARMS any chance for competition to occur. THERE IS NO MONOPOLY. Nothing is stopping another service from coming up. Youtube, with its recent decisions, has competitors popping up. It is losing its customers. That can't occur in a market that has been monopolized. So because they dont have your political bent, you want to punish them? While ignoring the harm that unchecked ISP's are actively doing on the public? You have a very odd definition of harm if so. So the age of the law is what matters? You dont care if a new law is broken, but if its old then its fine? And btw, those things didnt break the regulations because they were happening for 15 years prior to its existance. It is proof that, given the opportunity, the ISPs will abuse the consumer. Dragonmount is an internet forum. Twitter and Facebook are both Social Media. They are grouped together because Wikipedia considers them both "microblogging" websites. Thats why they are on this page. Word count changes nothing. Your being pedantic. See, I read those lines (except Brietbart because lol breitbart). How does removing internet ISP regulation prevent those? Short answer, it doesn't. Acquiring startups is completely different from restricting the internet. This is how you get things like Article 13 in the EU.

So your basing your entire knowledge of British culture, and more specifically the City of London's culture, off of a Black Sketch Comedy group?

They are directly competing for their users time. Huh... Facebook is right next to Twitter on that page. Guess they are competing, huh? Oh wow. So somehow they arnt the same thing because one restricts characters. Its a different thing entirely when your talking websites and retention time. The Wikipedia link you gave me says otherwise.