Net Neutrality
- Thread starter rakedog
- Start date
and the week before that as well...
the idea of a controlled internet is ever so slightly sickening...
the trouble is that america is a freemarket economy, everybody can and will make money wherever they can! in truth, nobody owns the internet, but the telcos do own the cables that provides it... and they can do whatever they like with those cables, it's not too disimmilar from nobody owning water, but you are charged to have it provided to your house, or you're charged if you buy a bucket to carry it.
internet filtering, sorta reminds me of communist china a little, blocking out certain sites, except they do it for content, wheras in america they'd be doing it for profit!
the idea of a controlled internet is ever so slightly sickening...
the trouble is that america is a freemarket economy, everybody can and will make money wherever they can! in truth, nobody owns the internet, but the telcos do own the cables that provides it... and they can do whatever they like with those cables, it's not too disimmilar from nobody owning water, but you are charged to have it provided to your house, or you're charged if you buy a bucket to carry it.
internet filtering, sorta reminds me of communist china a little, blocking out certain sites, except they do it for content, wheras in america they'd be doing it for profit!
No, the consumers will have the ultimate say if they band together.
In business class we learn that just because no one offically bosses you around, and technically you can do as you please as long as its legal. IE charing a arm and a leg for stupid stuff, if the consumers reject it because of cost or unfairness, you have to meet their demands its fairly simple. Or if teh consumers make it hetic enough that its not worth it.
If ISPs do it, don't let them off easy, get mean and rough with them, and make sure everyone esle is doing it as well. What the hell you think they going do, block your number, and throw your e-maill addres to be filtere and deleted? Along with the other 50% of their coustomers. Even if you can get only 10% to complain 10% of any company is a large enough number to worry about.
In business class we learn that just because no one offically bosses you around, and technically you can do as you please as long as its legal. IE charing a arm and a leg for stupid stuff, if the consumers reject it because of cost or unfairness, you have to meet their demands its fairly simple. Or if teh consumers make it hetic enough that its not worth it.
If ISPs do it, don't let them off easy, get mean and rough with them, and make sure everyone esle is doing it as well. What the hell you think they going do, block your number, and throw your e-maill addres to be filtere and deleted? Along with the other 50% of their coustomers. Even if you can get only 10% to complain 10% of any company is a large enough number to worry about.
MooseMan1
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,627
- Location
- United States
true, but people complain alot about gas prices but there not changing that factorNik00117 said:
exactly...
and you have to look at the situation like we have here in the UK.
to get the internet 9 times out of 10 you have to have a british telecom cable running into your house, BT own practically all the copper wires, the only exception to this rule is people who (like me) get their broadband through cable (as in cable TV), there are effectivly only two copper owners in the UK, BT and NTL telewest. if BT decide to cap this 100% of their customer base could complain, the fact is that it won't change a thing, they are relient on the wires!
the other thing is that this could actually work out better for the consumer, as it is a consumer will typically pay 14.99 per month for 2Mb broadband with a 1GB download cap, and then pay something like £1 for each additional 1GB, this way the consumer only has to pay 50p per additional 1GB because the high content stuffed sites are paying for the other half...
more ofthen than not the internet in general is clogged up with stuff I don't even want to see, sites that use flash buttons rather than simple text buttons with style sheet attributes (which 9/10 can look exactly the same as the flash buttons! -if the web master took the time to learn how to make the site properly)...
don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the internet to continue to be unregulated where all buisinesses compete on a level playing field, but as it is the internet is becoming more and more innaccessible to my aging laptop because it seems every other site carries a banner add that is made in flash! and there are people out there who have old computers, should they be exempt from using the net because people cannot regulate themselves?
as it is, if I live in a neibourhood and I get 2Mb broadband with a 5/1 contention ratio, then my neighbor IS using bandwidth that I could be using, and like I say, a lot of what I download, or a lot of the traffic that I generate, I don't even want anyway,
if there were a flash banner add on this page, (or a flash pop up) then that popup would be taking more time to actually download and run than all the text that is on the page!
at least if the big providers had to pay to have all this stuff on their sites we might at least get a few less large bandwidth hogging adverts!
and you have to look at the situation like we have here in the UK.
to get the internet 9 times out of 10 you have to have a british telecom cable running into your house, BT own practically all the copper wires, the only exception to this rule is people who (like me) get their broadband through cable (as in cable TV), there are effectivly only two copper owners in the UK, BT and NTL telewest. if BT decide to cap this 100% of their customer base could complain, the fact is that it won't change a thing, they are relient on the wires!
the other thing is that this could actually work out better for the consumer, as it is a consumer will typically pay 14.99 per month for 2Mb broadband with a 1GB download cap, and then pay something like £1 for each additional 1GB, this way the consumer only has to pay 50p per additional 1GB because the high content stuffed sites are paying for the other half...
more ofthen than not the internet in general is clogged up with stuff I don't even want to see, sites that use flash buttons rather than simple text buttons with style sheet attributes (which 9/10 can look exactly the same as the flash buttons! -if the web master took the time to learn how to make the site properly)...
don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the internet to continue to be unregulated where all buisinesses compete on a level playing field, but as it is the internet is becoming more and more innaccessible to my aging laptop because it seems every other site carries a banner add that is made in flash! and there are people out there who have old computers, should they be exempt from using the net because people cannot regulate themselves?
as it is, if I live in a neibourhood and I get 2Mb broadband with a 5/1 contention ratio, then my neighbor IS using bandwidth that I could be using, and like I say, a lot of what I download, or a lot of the traffic that I generate, I don't even want anyway,
if there were a flash banner add on this page, (or a flash pop up) then that popup would be taking more time to actually download and run than all the text that is on the page!
at least if the big providers had to pay to have all this stuff on their sites we might at least get a few less large bandwidth hogging adverts!
When poeple complain about having to pay 2.30 for a gallon of gas, most europeans laugh. The gas prices in America are EXTERMELY low compared to the rest of the world for the most part. Also you don't have your local OPEC hotline phone number do you? Anyways consumer demands will be met, that is if ISPs care about being able tp pay its poeple next month.
And when I say complain, I mean really complain give them a headache. Call them up and complain get to hang up on you, then REPEAT THE PROCESS, and if you got 1,000 or 2,000, or EVEN 10,000 poeple do it it'd get INCREDILY ANNOYING for the employees which would inturn complain. Eventually the complaints would mount up and they'd have to crack. Its just whose will is stronger.
And as for the ads, I don't notice them at all. And regradless of what your neighbor does on his internet it shouldn't affect yours. ISPs divide it up, you get so much, and no more, don't matter if your neighbor is DLING 50 movies or 25 shouldn't affect you.
As one sentator who thinks ISP should be allowed to do this said "Took me 5 days to get my e-mail because some guy was streaming 10 movies"
What a ****...
Trivium Nate
BSOD
- Messages
- 7,539
This is Dumb I think that we should all get the speed that we pay for what ever our ISP is we should be getting our full speed. I hope my isp(Road Runner) doesnt do this
MooseMan1
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,627
- Location
- United States
well yea i could easially get my OPEC number....but besides that, it is true that it can take longer 2 recive your information because of neighbors. most services will connect a entire neighborhood togerather with 1 connection to the servers, so basically if some1 is streaming alot of stuff it can slow it down some, but not as much as the senitor said... the more people in that area that connect with that ISP the slower the internet for that entire group will be. i use COX high speed internet and i hope they wouldn't do that..... they seem 2 be a really good service and do have the best customer service....Nik00117 said:
well I envisage that's because you have a fast computer and fast connection. think of what it's like for people on dialup... they have to use the internet too, and the point I was making is that maybe if people were fiscally discouraged from using more space that they necessarily had to then the internet would opperate faster for all of us.Nik00117 said:
on jan 25th 2003 the internet ground to a halt within ten minutes of an internet work being released, whilst this worm was only a few hundred KB in size, and only affected a service that wasn't really widly used still the entier internet slowed down, with many people reporting that the service was completly unavailable,
if a few hundred K file being transmitted a few thousand times can cog up switches so much that the entier world wide web crawls to a practical halt within ten mintes, imagine what a few million people trying to download a video could do...
also on sept 11 2001 the internet ground to an almost halt as people all around the workld tried to connect to news services to find out what was happening in new york.
considerable slowdown also hapened this time last year (july 7th) as people tried to find out what was happening in London
as pointed out above, clearly what other people do does affect how fast your connection goes...
as for ISPs dividing up speed so much and then no more.
when I said contention ratio, did you even know what that is?
http://www.getonlinebroadband.com/faqs/faq02.html
whilst I don't believe it took him weeks to get an email, it is theoretically possible that it could hapen, (i.e mail servers try to make a connection, if that fails they wait a while and try again.it could have been that a single large piece of mail was not able to be transmitted and thus blocked up the queue for sending other bits of mail).
last, (but by certainly no mean least).
in the last thread about net neutrality, when you described that senator, I asked if you could moderate your language.
Now I've had to do it for you... there are certain words that really shouldn't be used since this is a public forum open ot people of all ages.
Nik00117, the problem is, that most people won't KNOW that the sites they are visiting are being blackmailed by the ISP. They'll just think. Oh hey, look at that. Yahoo is running shitty today, guess their service sucks, lets switch to MSN. And even if they DO realize that, what if they live in a town where only 1 ISP is around, like much of America. Even if they bitch and whine about it to the ISP's, nobody is going to change anything, if they want a connection at all, they'll have to live with the ISP terms.
Now, on the other hand, what could happen to prevent Net Neutrality from being violated is if large corperations (Google, M$, Yahoo, mySpace), completely boycott an ISP if they try to blackmail them. So I wouldn't be surpised that in a few years, if you tried to access google on some ISP's, they would get a message saying:
"Your ISP tried to slow down our services to a crawl. So we decided to return the favor".
And not let any users from that ISP use google. That would make the ISP's think twice about blackmailing google. What's more, if all the pro-Net-Neutrality companies got together (a force with ebay, yahoo, google, m$, amazon, etc.) and stated that any ISP that tried to blackmail any of the members, the entire group would boycott that ISP. While I don't imagine M$ and Google working together ever, it would still be a spectacular sight. No ISP would ever even think of doing anything that would risk losing access to all those sites.
Now, on the other hand, what could happen to prevent Net Neutrality from being violated is if large corperations (Google, M$, Yahoo, mySpace), completely boycott an ISP if they try to blackmail them. So I wouldn't be surpised that in a few years, if you tried to access google on some ISP's, they would get a message saying:
"Your ISP tried to slow down our services to a crawl. So we decided to return the favor".
And not let any users from that ISP use google. That would make the ISP's think twice about blackmailing google. What's more, if all the pro-Net-Neutrality companies got together (a force with ebay, yahoo, google, m$, amazon, etc.) and stated that any ISP that tried to blackmail any of the members, the entire group would boycott that ISP. While I don't imagine M$ and Google working together ever, it would still be a spectacular sight. No ISP would ever even think of doing anything that would risk losing access to all those sites.
