sarettah

Fiddy FCC Fuckers Fucking With The Fucking Internet.

.

__________________
All cookies cleared!

astronaut x

Because this is not an industry board anymore.

Its has been over run by Trump trolls who have no fucking interest in adult internet. The only reason they are here is to push the alt-right, all white racist neo-nazi agenda.

astronaut x

This isn't a democrat or republican issue. It's basically us against all of them who are for this. Dem or Rep.

MaDalton

you claim the opposite from what is written there - so you either didn't read it or you twist the facts on purpose. which one is it?

__________________
AmazingContent.com - providing only the best content and service since 2003
Monetize your content on Veegaz.com - one of Germanies largest VOD sites
Got German traffic? We convert it into money for you!
Skype: madalton02826 - Email: oltecconsult [at] gmail [dot] com

RedFred

Comcast has been doing that shit to us for the past year. We are allocated 1024GB a month and if we go over it it's $10 more for each 50GB on top of the $80 a month for $150mps download speed. If you watch 4k on netflix you can eat up that data fast.

Boozer

Explain? What was the opposite?

XSAXS

FCC Head Ajit Pai: Killing Net Neutrality Will Set the Internet Free
27 Minute Podcast: FCC Head Ajit Pai: Killing Net Neutrality Will Set the Internet Free - Hit & Run : Reason.com

I admit, I am unclear about Net Neutrality. I've picked up only dribs and drabs about it. But I say more competition in the market is a good thing. It sucks to live in an area where you have only one broadband provider. I'd much prefer to have 2-5-10 different provider options (I think most would agree). So if this legislation leads to more competition and more choices, I'm all for it.

T-Mobile and Sprint are forcing Verizon and At&T to reevaluate their plans all the time. That's a good thing.

sarettah

T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon and AT&T phone services, as common carriers, are all regulated under title ii, the same as ISPs are currently. Title II regulation does not seem to have stifled competition among the phone carriers so why would anyone assume that it would stifle competition among ISPs. It has not (as I illustrated earlier).

The only ones saying that Title II stifles competition are the ones trying to repeal the Net Neutrality protections offerd by Title II by trying to reclassify ISPs as Title I. They offer up no reasons as to why it would stifle competition. They offer up no examples of it stifling competition.

The fact of the matter is that title II regulations do NOT stifle competition, they do however, protect consumers.

The same people yelling about how we have to remove the regulations in order to get competition are also the same ones that try to sell you a trickle down economy, an idea that has never worked in all the times it has been introduced.

.

__________________
All cookies cleared!

XSAXS

sarettah, you may be right. I honestly don't know.

But fair warning...

Just like everything else in politics, there are too many firebreathers on both sides of this issue. One side makes fiery end-of-the-world claims -- and then the other side makes completely different end-of-the-world claims.

You never know who to believe. NPR? Fox News? Maddow? Hannity? Or god forbid... Alex Jones? Every damn one of them has some kind of nutty spin on reality. Every one of them has their own brand of firebreathing and half-truths. And all it does is work people into a frenzy.

The actual, factual truth gets lost in the frenzy of it all.

Here's what I know...

1. In a major Portland suburb, my inlaws have the choice of exactly ONE broadband cable provider. And they suck ass. Literally everyone in that town KNOWS they suck ass. Awful service. Sky high prices. Mediocre speed. If it were possible for some other company to be competing in that town, they would be. But I assume there's no other competitors because of some kind of Gov't regs -- but TBH, I don't know for sure.
2. If there WERE a competitor in that market, then both companies would have to work hard to offer a better user experience (and price) than the other. That competition would be a good thing for the consumer.
3. It's like the new, ongoing competition between YouTube TV, Playstation VUE, DirectTV NOW, HuluLive. Those companies are competing fiercely to earn new members. And the consumer wins. Because he's not locked into one. He's free to come and go as he pleases. He gets everything the cable companies were providing without a 2 year contract and at a much lower price. That's a very good thing. And it's a good example of how the industry is regulating itself. If YouTube TV suddenly introduced a 2 year contract, everyone would fuck off to PSVue or HuluLive. Plain and simple. I think this is a real-world picture of what could happen with ISPs if the regs were less stringent.
4. I lived in a town where there was only one (shitty) broadband provider. They started imposing really low monthly data limits, overage charges, and throttling. It was so bad that the Municipality voted on BUILDING THEIR OWN ISP -- to be funded and operated by the city. I don't follow what happened because we moved away, but the point is... people want their porn. They want their Netflix. So they'll get it one way or another. I'm sure of it.
5. As much as we all hate the idiot in the White House, I don't think anyone in his admin or anyone heading the Rep. party wants to have "I Destroyed the Internet" permanently attached to his/her legacy. They're stupid, but not that stupid.
6. IMPORTANT: Republicans watch just as much porn and Netflix and YouTube as everyone else. So if someone (anyone) fucks that up, they're going to be just as pissed as the rest of us. And they will demand a fix.
7. My gut on this is that Trump & co. really do want to foster more competition into the market. Cox, Comcast, xFinity, CenturyLink, etc, etc... they've had regional monopolies for a verrry long time. And I think Trump & co. would like to see those regional monopolies disappear. Whether or not repeal accomplishes that... I have no idea. But I can't imagine that they're interested in permanently harming the Internet -- it would be political suicide for an administration that already seems to be teetering on its last legs.

sarettah

XSAXS - I read what you wrote very quickly and I am too tired at the moment to give it the proper attention. I will try to remember to return to it later.

I will address one thing though, and I do not know that this is the actual situation that your inlaws encountered or you in the town with the one broadband provider.

In most cities, cable providers were given monopolies for a certain amount of time on providing cable TV services. Remember, cable TV is not regulated under FCC for the most part. Most regulations on cable TV providers are state or local. Localities gave them the monopoly for a period because they were going to be investing the capital to build out the cable system.

Most broadband Internet is provided by the cable TV providers, because they have (or had) a monopoly on the cable TV service they are logically the only ones that can offer the broadband access and you end up with situations like you describe.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality or FCC oversight. That is the unfortunate result of the evolution of broadband and it being attached to the cable TV providers.

.

__________________
All cookies cleared!

Barry-xlovecam

The Devil's Advocate argument is: Why compete in a market that is not profitable?

Internet bandwidth costs have fallen dramatically in the past 5 years so there is no supply side reason for a rate increase or caps.

New last mile technologies should lower costs.

If I could get fiber 1gbs service in my location I would probably pay a reasonable price for it -- as it is now I would have to move 5 miles south to get it. I understand that most on my street would not pay the price but the AT&T DSLAM with a fiber connection is 780 m away ...

tfto

Bladelier always plays the Trump Supporters card. Newsflash asshole, This was tried under Obama also. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/323681

bronco67

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017...-investigation

They're trying to railroad this through with as little input from the public (or anyone else) as possible. The FCC is supposed to be working for the people, not the telecom giants -- who will most definitely fuck all of us is they have no regulations keeping them from doing it.

I wish Republicans could first see what a US without regulations would look like before they go around stripping away all of them. Once they see that most certainly they would be affected just as much as liberals then they might think differently.

__________________

The Porn Nerd

Life Lesson #1: Whenever a giant corporation wants to reduce or eliminate regulations it benefits THE CORPORATION, not consumers.

Consumers will pay more, that's always the #1 Goal of any company (yours and mine included). So when I see any sector lobbying for deregulation (Wall Street, banking, oil, telecommunications, etc) my asshole clenches because I know I am about to be fucked (without lube).

Deregulation does two things the Powerful love: it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

__________________
My Affiliate Programs:
Porn Nerd Cash | Porn Showcase | Aggressive Gold

Over 90 paysites to promote!
Skype: peabodymedia

bronco67

Exactly. Regulations exist to keep your butthole from getting reamed by people trying to make money. If a chemical plant didn't have to adhere to regulations, do you think they'd abstain from dumping dangerous chemicals into a drinking water supply? No they wouldn't.

__________________

Acepimp

^^ Exactly. Net neutrality was nothing but another way for Democrats to censor political free speech.

FLASHBACK: SOCIALISTS DEVELOPED NET NEUTRALITY TO CENSOR INTERNET

Sure are a lot of socialist commies here who support censorship.

Killing net neutrality is the right move, and guess what snowflakes? Trump gives zero fucks about your opinions.

__________________

Barry-xlovecam

https://www.reddit.com/r/PandR/comme...wants_to_roll/

InfoGuy

Since you raise the topic of ethics, how about Hillary Clinton signing off on the deal for Uranium One and taking kickbacks at the expense of national security?

__________________
Support American Heroes | How Bad is My Batch? | Vaccine Deaths & Adverse Reactions | Free Speech Coalition | <WARNING> ePayService / Guerra Capital, INC / MTACC payments | Flirt4Free Fucks their Affiliates | Don't do business with piece of shit Andy Alvarez from Webmaster Central / VR3000, who said:
"If it was up to me, they would have shot all 30,000 of those country loving shitheads"

RedFred

Debunked ya dumb fuck.


Fox News viewers outraged after Shepard Smith debunks Hillary Clinton uranium ?scandal?

The Porn Nerd

The Final Irony of people who support the Rich at the expense of the Middle Class (even tho they themselves are Middle Class or worse) and get fucked in the ass by the Rich once Elected is not a big enough irony to justify people's ignorance and stupidity.

We get the Government we deserve remember.

__________________
My Affiliate Programs:
Porn Nerd Cash | Porn Showcase | Aggressive Gold

Over 90 paysites to promote!
Skype: peabodymedia

Bladewire

True. When the most prolific poster on a porn board is named WeHatePorn and he posts alt right hate via 5 nics, you know AVN Media Networks is just letting GFY die a slow painful death, for whatever reason. Sad

__________________

Bladewire

Uummm... Having 3 big companies provide services for the whole country is "competition" in your eyes? They lobby and get laws passed to make huge barriers to entries for cellular competition.

Restaurants aren't monopolized like our telecom & cable providers you know how I know? Search for a local restaurant online, hundreds of providers with individual owners, no monopoly.

sarettah

I was addressing a post that listed just those 3 carriers so those are the only 3 I addressed in my reply.

Those are the big 3, yes. BUT there are other carriers you can go with, some who are using the big 3 infrastructure and some that are not.

I typed cell phone carriers into google and this is one of the first links, so not something I endorse, just using as a list of some of the carriers available:

https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Carriers

__________________
All cookies cleared!

crockett

You forget 3rd option. He's the fake nick of the same idiot who is constantly shitting up the forum.

bronco67

Is that the argument from your side for everything brought up about a corrupt president? What about Hilary Clinton?

Hilary Clinton isn't president, and all of that shit has been totally debunked.

__________________

bronco67

But what about Hilary Clinton? Waaaaaaa

__________________

Bladewire

^^^ Truth Wehateporn aka Onwebcam aka Matt 26z aka Mineistaken aka Acepimp

__________________

sarettah

Just a bump to keep this on top.

__________________
All cookies cleared!

Bladewire

Fucking ASSHOLES!

Comcast hints at plan for paid fast lanes after net neutrality repeal

For years, Comcast has been promising that it won't violate the principles of net neutrality, regardless of whether the government imposes any net neutrality rules. That meant that Comcast wouldn't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic and that it wouldn't create fast lanes in order to collect tolls from Web companies that want priority access over the Comcast network.

This was one of the ways in which Comcast argued that the Federal Communications Commission should not reclassify broadband providers as common carriers, a designation that forces ISPs to treat customers fairly in other ways. The Title II common carrier classification that makes net neutrality rules enforceable isn't necessary because ISPs won't violate net neutrality principles anyway, Comcast and other ISPs have claimed.

But with Republican Ajit Pai now in charge at the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast's stance has changed. While the company still says it won't block or throttle Internet content, it has dropped its promise about not instituting paid prioritization.

Instead, Comcast now vaguely says that it won't "discriminate against lawful content" or impose "anti-competitive paid prioritization." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes to websites or other online services, such as video streaming providers, after Pai's FCC eliminates the net neutrality rules next month. With no FCC rules against paid fast lanes, it would be up to Comcast to decide whether any specific prioritization deal is "anti-competitive."

We do not and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content. We will continue to make sure that our policies are clear and transparent for consumers, and we will not change our commitment to these principles. pic.twitter.com/19PFCPJ3TY

? Comcast (@comcast) November 22, 2017
?Comcast has never offered paid prioritization?

Comcast is the largest home Internet provider in the US, with more than 23.5 million residential Internet subscribers. In May 2014, Comcast Senior Executive VP David Cohen wrote the following:

To be clear, Comcast has never offered paid prioritization, we are not offering it today, and we're not considering entering into any paid prioritization creating fast lane deals with content owners.
Six months later, Comcast made the promise again, saying, "We don't prioritize Internet traffic or have paid fast lanes, and have no plans to do so." Comcast said that it agreed with then-President Obama's stance that there should be "no paid prioritization."

The circumstances in 2014 were different than they are today. Back then, the FCC clearly intended to impose at least some restrictions on paid prioritization, and ISPs were trying to avoid the Title II classification. Comcast had also agreed to some limitations on paid prioritization as a condition on its 2011 purchase of NBCUniversal.

But the NBCUniversal conditions expire in September 2018, and Pai's proposal would undo the Title II classification and get rid of the net neutrality rules entirely. Both legally and politically, Comcast now has an opening to retreat at least partially from its net neutrality promises.

Comcast's change in strategy was evident in July of this year when Comcast urged the FCC to overturn the Title II order.

"[W]e do not and will not block, slow down, or discriminate against lawful content," Comcast wrote at the time, omitting its previous promise to avoid paid prioritization.

The FCC, Comcast said, could remove the Title II classification while still having "clearly defined net neutrality principles?no blocking, no throttling, no anti-competitive paid prioritization, and full transparency."

As it turned out, Pai's final plan that will be voted on December 14 doesn't even ban blocking or throttling. Comcast could thus pull back even further from its net neutrality promises, but as of last week it was still promising that it won't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic.

The cable lobby group NCTA similarly promised this year that its members will not "block, throttle or otherwise impair your online activity," but it made no promises about paid prioritization. In 2014, the NCTA said that "no ISPs offer" paid prioritization.

Comcast?s future fast lanes

The remaining question is how Comcast's paid fast lanes would be implemented.

We contacted Comcast today to ask how it defines "anti-competitive paid prioritization." A spokesperson did not answer that question but referred us back to previous Comcast statements on the topic.

Comcast's promise not to "discriminate" suggests that its paid prioritization would be available to anyone who wants it and can afford it. Offering paid fast lanes to anyone at similar rates could help prevent the Federal Trade Commission from stepping in to block unfair trade practices.

Comcast's July 2017 filing with the FCC offers some hints on how the ISP will implement paid prioritization:

[T]he Commission also should bear in mind that a more flexible approach to prioritization may be warranted and may be beneficial to the public. For example, a telepresence service tailored for the hearing impaired requires high-definition video that is of sufficiently reliable quality to permit users "to perceive subtle hand and finger motions" in real time. And paid prioritization may have other compelling applications in telemedicine. Likewise, for autonomous vehicles that may require instantaneous data transmission, black letter prohibitions on paid prioritization may actually stifle innovation instead of encouraging it. Commercial arrangements that entail prioritizing such traffic could ensure the low latency levels needed to achieve the high level of data quality necessary for such services to thrive.
Comcast stood by its 2014 statement in support of a rebuttable presumption against "exclusive [paid prioritization] arrangements and arrangements that prioritize a broadband provider's own affiliated content vis-à-vis unaffiliated content."

VRPdommy

First, why would a cable co want the net neutrality rules removed if they were going to voluntarily comply with them anyway. ...Hmmmm...

With all due respect to everyone here, @Bladewire post is the only post here that goes to the heart of the matter. Many here have been reading or repeating bad info on the subject and I suggest you really learn about this because for most of you, it is going to have profound effects and implications down the road.
This is not about right now, it is about the future. That is how they are buffaloing you.
ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY MORE TO STREAM TO YOUR CUSTOMERS IN A WAY THEY CAN ACTUALLY WATCH THE NEXT VIDEO FORMAT ?
It is not a move to increase your rates. It is a move to have control of the internet.
So while some say they do not want the government to have control, you will be giving that same control to someone else. I guess it is a matter of who you trust.
The cable co's have never shown any reason for that trust.

Cable TV is loosing customers because of the near monopoly and the fact we must 'SUBSIDIZE' channels we do not want (and make additional profits for cable).
Where are those on the right who do not like subsidies standing up on this issue ?
They like to scream about this stuff and I have never herd one cry about subsidies for cable. They even used a defense of Disney channel that nobody would buy if we did not include it in a package. It's not like the tech has not been in place to serve you just the channels you want for the last 6 years in the US.

So they loose their biz to the only competitors they have like NetFlix Hulu and Prime.
Because the cable co's bought all of the movie houses up and own all of the content. or were you all paying attention to all of those mergers and acquisitions the last 10 years ?
Sometimes you can price yourself out of the market. I'm not willing to give them any free pass because of their previous terrible behavior.

They have little to no competition on internet delivery. Most areas in the US would be lucky if they have more than 2 choices. Being 1 telco and one cable.
When and if I have 4 or more providers that can get me 50mbs, my opinion would be a bit different. But if we had that, there would be more merger or acquisition till there was 1 or two.

So remember it is about control of the internet. While I do not trust the government all that much, I trust the alternative much less.

kane

Of course they are. They aren't dumping millions into the effort to get rid of Net Neutrality just so they won't use the new rules to their benefit. It is funny that this comes out just a few days after they issued a statement saying they wouldn't be doing this.

The Porn Nerd

It's called obfuscate and cloud the waters, a distraction, a CYA (Cover Your Ass) move for political and economic reasons.

In other words: bullshit.

__________________
My Affiliate Programs:
Porn Nerd Cash | Porn Showcase | Aggressive Gold

Over 90 paysites to promote!
Skype: peabodymedia

Barry-xlovecam

Maybe Congress will vote themselves a pay raise and a day off next -- trickle down MAGA

More like trickle down your leg ...

CarlosTheGaucho

Call your senator

File a petition here:

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proc...ame:((17-108))


Do whatever it takes, this is a disaster in the making.

It can not be any more obvious an absurd:

- the name "restoring internet freedom" - what a joke
- the timing of the vote for December 14th - short before the Christmas so there's a bigger chance it won't get that much traction among the public
- Pai is a former Verizon lawyer, a fat check awaits him from all the corps after he retires, you can bet that 100 pct.
- this will not only be a huge incentive for the corporations to shake their customers for more money and prefer the services they have a stake in
- it can be also a HUGE tool for even more censorship, just imagine how for example Silicon valley is already now ever ready to censor anything against their personal SJW policies, this would enable to institute this already on the ISP level


Just look at this asshole:



You don't need to know anything more

go with your instinct

call your senator, file a petition, do anything you can.

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proc...ame:((17-108))

__________________
CTG Media | skype: carlosprague | cb |at| ctgmedia |dot| net | Want to make more with your Dating Traffic? | Read My Educational Series | Read my Adult Biz Chronicles | Did your ad revenue drop by 40 pct. or more last year?

Bladewire

Yes, Ajit Pai, the son of immigrants and he was the general counsel to Verizon before Trump picked him to head the FCC, and give Verizon what all the virtual monopolies want, more money for the same or less services.

This is basically all a setup for consumers to pay more for less. The next generation will be raised not knowing what unlimited bandwidth was and likely won't know what the internet is without platforms for the most part.

__________________

Grapesoda

It will be good for manwin

Cyber Fucker

__________________

The Porn Nerd

We have a saying here in New York and it's one of my favorites:

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."

:D

__________________
My Affiliate Programs:
Porn Nerd Cash | Porn Showcase | Aggressive Gold

Over 90 paysites to promote!
Skype: peabodymedia

PornDiscounts-V

Want to watch tubes? Going to cost you!

But, could be good. Except that you'll also have to pay a premium to watch any other legit porn.

__________________

Paul Markham

As someone who sold videos @ $30 for 3 solo girls scenes at a time when companies sold hardcore @ $50 for 90 minutes. I can't see why raising the price of porn is a problem.

Old-timers will tell you about the good old days when B/W was $5 and conversions were 1-300. The low price of B/W has allowed surfers to not buy porn at all. Giving them free access to millions of scenes. That has decimated the industry. Maybe putting up the prices will save it.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

The Porn Nerd

Excellent point Paul!!

(Welcome back and hope you are feeling better.)

__________________
My Affiliate Programs:
Porn Nerd Cash | Porn Showcase | Aggressive Gold

Over 90 paysites to promote!
Skype: peabodymedia

Fetish Gimp

The problem is that the internet is not only used for porn, it's used for most things nowadays.

But first, let's break down some of the bullshit flying around.

At its core, the argument against net neutrality is that "fast lanes will be good for businesses". But we already have "fast lanes", it's called bandwidth. Higher bandwidth = faster access = higher fees.

What repealing net neutrality means is that ISPs will double-dip: they'll charge consumers for bandwidth AND they'll be able to charge websites also for these so-called "fast lanes". ISPs will be able to throttle sites and make them pay for "fast lane" access, and the cost will, obviously, be passed down to you, the consumer, for something you're already paying for.

So you, as the consumer, are going to get charged more money for the same service you're already getting already, or poorer if ISPs decide to bundle "fast lane" sites under packages.

The second, and particularly idiotic, argument is "the government shouldn't be regulating anything, let the free market decide". Except government regulations are sometimes not only necessary, but essential.

Take food regulations for instance. Or traffic regulations. There's a reason government regulates these aspects: they're too important. Same with net neutrality.

__________________
Strapon Seduction - femdom blog | Twitter

Paul Markham

Welcome to the real world. Where a Skoda cost less than a Rolls Royce, fast food costs less than a fine steak.

Where 10 gb costs less than 1,000 gb.

Where you get the government you voted for. This has been on the cards for ages.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

pimpmaster9000

elon to the rescue! the meme blow is made up but space net will be active by 2019 for some users and global by 2024...

__________________
Report a suspicious cracker: Click Here

Fetish Gimp

Right now, with net neutrality, a Skoda costs less than a Rolls Royce, in the sense that, yes, 10 gb costs less than 1,000 gb. You got that part right

WITHOUT net neutrality, a Skoda can cost the same as a Rolls Royce if an ISP decides that it should.

Let me frame it another way.

It's like if electricity companies decided that you should pay depending on the type of devices you have in your home.

You have a fridge? Well, then the electricity companies will charge all fridge-making companies extra fees because fridges consume more electricity than light-bulbs so that electricity companies can create "fast lanes" for fridges which are in homes.

You have an electric car? Then the electric companies will have to charge electric-car companies extra for "fast lanes" for those electric cars that people have.

And we, the consumers, will obviously be absorbing these costs. Net result: we'll have lesser access, and end up paying more.

And these changes will have repercussions that we cannot predict right now, since so much of today's business happens over the net. Banking, health services, shopping.

Bandwidth is an utility, just like electricity under net neutrality rules. Take it away, and it becomes a luxury item.

And no, doing away with net neutrality will not bring back your "good ol' days"

__________________
Strapon Seduction - femdom blog | Twitter

Paul Markham

If you believe millions of consumers will pay for a Rolls Royce but get a Skoda. You have no idea.

Yes a faster connection will cost more and if you need it to consume or distribute 1,000s of gb a minute. Pay for it.


Low cost B/W ruined this industry.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

Fetish Gimp

We're already paying for it. Do you own any websites or do any kind of marketing that needs webhosting?

As a producer, you want to give your visitors faster access? You get a higher data plan/broader pipe.

Do the terms shared hosting, dedicated hosting, vps server mean anything to you?

That's, in terms you might understand: slow lane, highway, autobahn.

Those without a clue (like you) and those that have something to gain with the repeal of net neutrality, say "fast lanes" will be good.

Except, they ALREADY EXIST.

In short, the repeal of net neutrality means: giving an unprecedented amount of control to ISPs, and allowing them to double-dip consumers since we'll be paying for the increased costs that this would entail.

No, the digital revolution changed the game, disrupted your business model, and you couldn't adapt.

But guess what? You're not alone. The internet/digital revolution changed pretty much EVERYBODY'S game.

Go ask those in journalism how they feel about the internet/twitter/social media. Or those in the printing industry.

When was the last time you saw a bike courier? What about photographers, how do they feel about digital technology?

And what about film development companies? And the thousands of companies that developed products related to it?

One can choose to feel bitter about it, or one can try to adapt.

I know which one you chose

__________________
Strapon Seduction - femdom blog | Twitter

Fetish Gimp

If you live in the USA, can you tell me how many broadband providers exist in your area?

If you're lucky there's three, and if there are more I can almost certainly guarantee that they're resellers.

You see, that "free market" argument works when it's an industry where there is one. That's not the case in telecommunications because of the humongous entry costs.

So, you'll be at the mercy of whatever ISPs in your area decide you'll be paying, and what websites they'll package for you.

So your "free market" argument is, as your presence is on this board, utterly meaningless

__________________
Strapon Seduction - femdom blog | Twitter

Paul Markham

Who controls the prices you sell, the government or you?



So you will have to adapt to selling more product for a better price because of giving it away will end. Or do you believe Tube sites will be given a deal so good they aren't affected?

I don't have to adept, I made my fortune with porn before the industry decided to give it away. I'm retired.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

Paul Markham

I live in Europe.

If the prices go too high, the suppliers lose customers. So you are protected. Making it too high for porn would close Tubes.

The free market has a habit of regulating prices according to demand.

Are you afraid that you can't sell your product without giving it away?

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70