You pay for a particular service from an internet provider and after that you use the internet as you please. Repealing net neutrality could lead to providers charging over and above existing fees for packages based on different speeds. So ordering a library book over the internet from your local library may not be considered a priority by your provider unless of course you are willing to pay a bit more for a faster speed to access your library. The internet, as it is now, operates fairly providing infinite choice to users.
The Internet is made of its users. Not anything else. It is a set of websites created by its users and without its users the Internet is complelty useless to us. We are the ones that publish and post the websites and the information that people take information from. Therefore, we should be the ones to decide what we do and do not see from our computer screens. The government or anything else does not have the authority to choose whether or not to slow down an service or to charge the user. That is absurd and irrational. We are in control and no one else is. That is an abuse of power if they are controlling even what we see on our computers. That is wrong. That is unjust. Net Neutrality is the best way to mutual freedom and no one can take that away. The more out technology advances, the more our rights shall advance as well. This is a natural right, and taking it away is unconstitutional and unjust.
Most arguments against neutrality are like this one: " internet neutrality is a way of allowing internet providers to filter content that they think is illegal, or slow down content that they think is taking up too much space. This is a proper use of network administration." Amazingly missing the point that scares the rest of us. The argument is to give a business the power to control an extremely powerful method of communication based on decisions made behind closed doors. A business will do what is right for the stockholder and to make big bonuses. They will not, as a business, make decisions that will benefit anybody unless it also benefits themselves. As some are waking up to the fact that Fox News content and delivery has a very strong political and religious agenda powered by a few extremely wealthy people, some day we will wake up to the fact that ISP's have swayed the general population for personal, political, and financial gain, without any respect for the population at large. Sorry. Business as a rule does not care.
If the concern is that emergency services don't have the speed they are due then provide a speed code for them. If a business, like netflix, cares to use an extremely high volume they should pay for it. But the ISP should NOT chose their own news stories over any other news story. THIS is the argument and this is what is being eroded at haste. What a tremendous loss for the United States.
Transcripts, Season 3 transcripts
< Pickle Rick
PM-icon-101 This is a transcribed copy for the episode "Pickle Rick." Feel free to edit or add to this page as long as the information comes directly from the episode.
Previous: "Rickmancing the Stone" Next: "Vindicators 3: The Return of Worldender"
[Open on Morty combing his hair in the bathroom mirror. He is wearing an orange sweater vest, a yellow dress shirt, and an olive tie.]
Rick: (offscreen, in the distance) Morty.
[Morty stops combing, looks around, then continues combing]
Rick: (offscreen, in the distance) Morty!
Rick: (offscreen, in the distance) Hey, Mooorty!
Morty: Rick? Are you far away, or are you inside something?
[Morty opens a cabinet beneath the bathroom sink]
Is this a camera?
[Morty tries to look inside his comb for a camera]
Is everything a camera?
[Morty nervously glances around]
Rick: (offscreen, in the distance) Morty, the garage, Morty. Come to the garage!
[Transition to Morty entering the garage. There is a pickle and a screwdriver on Rick's work bench]
Morty: Rick? W-where are you?
Rick: On my work bench, Morty.
Morty: Are you invisible and you're gonna, like, fart on me?
Rick: Flip the pickle over.
Morty: What, I'm gonna touch it, and you're gonna tell me it's an alien dick or something.
Rick: Come on, flip the pickle, Morty. You're not gonna regret it. The payoff is huge.
[Morty hesitantly picks up the screwdriver and turns the pickle over. The pickle has Rick's face on it]
Pickle Rick: I turned myself into a pickle, Morty! Boom! Big reveal: I'm a pickle. What do you think about that? I turned myself into a pickle! W-what are you just staring at me for, bro. I turned myself into a pickle, Morty!
Pickle Rick: "And"? What more do you want tacked on to this? I turned myself into a pickle, and 9/11 was an inside job?
Morty: Was it?
Pickle Rick: Who cares, Morty? Global acts of terrorism happen every day. Uh, here's something that's never happened before: I'm a pickle. I'm Pickle Rick!
Morty: Are you going to, I mean, you know, is this the first part of some magic trick?
Pickle Rick: I don't do magic, Morty, I do science. One takes brains, the other takes dark eye liner.
Morty: Well, can you move? Can you fly?
Pickle Rick: I wouldn't be much of a pickle if I could.
Morty: All right, well, do pickles live forever or --
Pickle Rick: Morty, stop digging for hidden layers and just be impressed. I'm a pickle.
Morty: I-I'm just trying to figure out why you would do this. Why anyone would do this.
Pickle Rick: The reason anyone would do this is, if they could, which they can't, would be because they could, which they can't.
Without this we would be subject to slower speeds. We may even be subject to get content we search for censored or filtered. It's possible to even get content blocked from us. This can take away our freedom to search the web in our current generation of technology. Maybe sometime in the future this might be a good thing, but for now it's not.
If big companies can charge people different amounts to use the internet, then they can control who can use the internet, which ruins free speech. It is also unfair for smaller companies that can't afford to pay the extra price. Net neutrality protects the freedom of the internet. Thank you.
If local broadband and fast Internet providers were in many many different areas, this would be fine to NOT have net neutrality. Competion would assure that prices stayed low. But that's NOT HOW THINGS ARE SET UP IN THE USA. Usually there is only 1-2 providers in one area, and you are stuck paying what ever they want to charge you. That is called a regional monopoly, and is one of the problems with capitalism. Government is then required to break up monopolies. Second, if we believed every thing cable and ISp providers told us, and they actually held their words to be true, we would be find. But comcast and other providers have been caught MULTIPLE MULTIPLE times throttling services like net flix or hulu so that people would instead also buy their cable tv packages. > They made Netflix pay more so that they wouldn't slow down their service they already had a contract for. And also, when you pay for service, you pay for a certain SPEED . Not speed for individual websites, speed for ALL OF THE INTERNET. This breaks almost every contract out there. So al and all, Net Neutrality is necessary to keep ISPs honest, allow customers to actually get the goods they pay for, and prevent monopolist overcharging and gouging.
Net Neutrality allows for a liberated internet, and independence from promotion of various companies and websites through cable speed. I don't want cable companies being allowed to dictate which websites I can and can't go to, and I feel that if net neutrality isn't protected it could become as much of a clusterfuck as cable television. It's not like capitalism in real life in which companies have limited authority over other companies. In a lack of net neutrality large providers (the gateways to the internet) could have massive and unchecked authority over the individual users of the internet.
If we don't have Net Neutrality then we run the risk of allowing ISP's to censor information, specifically they can create false RST packet responses if they deem a certain service too competitive. We saw this happen with Comcast in 2007, where P2P file sharing services would have false RST packets interjected into them by the network. This would stop the transmission of all packets, stooping the consumer from receiving the information they request.
. Net neutrality began in 2014 when Tom Wheeler released a plan that would allow AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon to discriminate online and create a pay-to-play fast lanes. Regulators across the globe are grappling with issues about the internet and debating net neutrality. The FCC or Federal Communications Commission is in charge of net neutrality and placing rules on internet in the U.S. Net neutrality gives the government more power over the internet. Although the government would be monitoring the internet, it is only to ensure that internet service providers are not discriminating against certain people. Net neutrality preserves our right to communicate freely online.
Maintaining a stance of neutrality does not help anyone. If one agrees with a stance or action one should speak up so that consensus may be reached and those outside of consensus are given the chance to re-evaluate. This, of course, applies to things that matter, in the case of things that don't matter, such as the actions of celebrities, a non-opinion and neutrality is best.
No, net neutrality is not a good thing, because it prevents people from doing legitimate things on the internet. Most people think net neutrality is simply a way of making sure that the internet is not censored. Rather, internet neutrality is a way of allowing internet providers to filter content that they think is illegal, or slow down content that they think is taking up too much space. This is a proper use of network administration.
The FCC had previously attempted to enforce such rules illegally, but lost in the Comcast v FCC case. This time Verizon took them on, and FCC lost again! You see, back in the Clinton years, a bill passed with bipartisan support that freed the Internet from burdensome regulation. It was called the Telecommunications Act, and its specifically separated information services from telecommunications services, disallowing the FCC from imposing the same degree of regulations on Internet services that they can on the Phone company. This was important in the debate before the Open Internet order, because Net Neutrality had already been ruled illegal in the Comcast case. So the radical left had argued that the FCC should wave a magic wand and declare that Internet service providers are no longer information services, and are now phone companies, and so should be reclassified as such. Today’s decision in Verizon v FCC rests on the classification of ISPs as being information services, as envisioned by the Telecommunications Act, which again was passed by Newt Gingrich’s House and signed by Bill Clinton. That’s how much of a common-sense thing it used to be, to have a lightly-regulated Internet. Bottom line do you really want the Govt to control your use of the Information Super Highway? Net Neutrality does nothing but give immense power to the FCC.
Some people love more options to choose from and it maybe is not needed but look at the world now the generation of technology is huge and if there is no competition then there is practically no reason to choose the opposing or going wireless connection like version or sprint.
There are a lot of important data on the internet. However, because of net neutrality, they have to treat all data equally. If there are lots of people looking up images, then people who need the internet for critical work would need to wait along with the people looking up images. There is a lot of things that can go wrong for the worker. However, if net neutrality ends, the operator would see that the worker needs to get it done fast and would prioritize the worker.
Net neutrality isn't fair, especially to the people who tend to use more internet service then others. I think that people should be more fair and accept the fact that net neutrality not only affects the extreme users, but also the nonusers since the speed usually affects everyone. People who do say that net neutrality is good are usually the people who binge watch on YouTube or Netflix
Net Neutrality makes ISP providers less rich. They can not charge for faster speeds, and much have equal speeds for every site. This makes sites that require a large bandwidth like Netflix not have to pay any fees even though they require more effort than usual sites do to run.
Yeah! Seems fair right? But companies could use net neutrality as policy.
OK, now come to the NIGHTMARE! Imagine a newly hosted domain a. Domain a is text based and can be loaded in second. Domain b is video based like YouTube. Now imagine giving equal access to both domain. Even the smallest must be treated like the biggest? You should be able to pay more for more. And get less to pay less. The "speed bump" policy is disallowed by competition.
We should be able to browse the internet without the internet companies wanting more money than we have to give them every month from our hard work and pay them out of pocket for them to not make the internet any faster but to make pipes to slow down our use of the internet and the speed of the internet.
'm Rick Harrison, and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss. Everything in here has a story and a price. One thing I've learned after 23 years. You never know WHAT is gonna come through that door. . . .