Net Neutrality

[A True Folder]

Bloody state control rears its ugly head again, christ soon we'll have something similar to China's "Internet Great Wall"

When are these asshat politicians going to realise that they can not and are not obligated to protect society from every petty "perceived" threat, sometimes the crap that dribbles out of the US makes me want to nuke the goddamn place.

OT (sort of because it's related by virtue of being "Stupid shit from the US")

How's the form of the idiot lawyer getting a case going against Sharon Stone for her karma comments regarding the China earthquake, why would you do that??? The mind boggles at the thought process (or more pointedly the lack of said process) that can even dream up a concept as lame as that let alone pursue such a minor thing tying up courts and peoples lives and even consider suing for a billion dollars, like she's going to write a cheque for a billion even if he does win ffs.

She opened her mouth too far, said something stupid (well she is blonde), then apologised, get over it.

Reality check time I think.

grrrrrr

/rant

lolz, I'm having a bitch of a day at work, that vent helped somewhat

 

[JogaBonito1502]

This is all I have to say about this:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Ben Franklin

Also, because I cannot find the quote from a philosopher back of the Enlightenment (Montesquieu? Maybe John Locke? I can't remember right now), I will have to paraphrase his "stolen" (as in someone else took it *cough* American Constitution, Thomas Jefferson *cough*) idea:

Liberty cannot co-exist with security. It's one or the other.

(sounds much more impressive if I had found the quote)

 

[Prodigy146]

Even if they do ruin net neutrality, we will find someway around it. i mean just look at torrenting, you cant control the internet. the public does

 

[Äߧý∩†H♠H䎀]

In all honesty I think its inevitable. Look at Cable and Satellite TV. You get your basic package then you have premium channels.

The internet is slowing dying. Look at all the company's trying to filter content whether it be P2P, torrenting and there latest target of newsgroups.

Not to mention all the caps there putting in. I think by 2009 caps will pretty much be a industry standard. It will end up being metered just like you electric gets metered and you'll pay by usage.

I'm sure there are lots of sites that can't currently take advantage of the full speed available on say a FIOS connection. Can you download at 20Mbps on the PSN network?

Maybe that is the goal of these company's. As video providers pop up more and more throughout the web cable/sat providers are losing there revenue because people just get it through there computer. Granted most don't because they don't know its available or don't have the speed to take advantage of it. They have implemented caps that are going to prohibit were the internet is trying to go.

Therefore if something like this does happen and sites are given priority over other sites look for certain premium ISP functions. IE you pay us $9.99 per month in addition to your current bill and you'll have unlimited access to netflix at 20Mbps vs a standard 10Mbps speed with a 250GB monthly cap.

I know my statement is slightly off topic but its in the general ballpark dealing with today's ISP's. The internet isn't what it was when it started. So much more to do and there just looking for ways to make as much money as possible. Dedicated HD broadband Tv's are on the way also. Another excuse to prioritize bandwidth via caps and throttling certain sites.

And for the one's that point out Obama is for net neutrality, I think we have some bigger problems around here than a god damn web page loading faster than another one. That pretty low on the priority list.

 

[JogaBonito1502]

Well...what you said is logical and acceptable. You have to pay, sure, no big deal as long as it isn't outrageous. I just don't want people blocking stuff from the internet so there's no way to access it.

 

[root]

capping service for major downloaders to preseve quality of service for other users when the ISP backbone has limited bandwidth is not what net neutrality is about.

Capping the service of 'abusive down loaders' make sure that whilst my torrent runs 247 taking up constant bandwidth it doesn't negatively affect the five minute sporadic download habits of my casual browsing neighbour, it's ensuring that everyone who pays for the service and pays equally for the service, gets equal usage out of that service.

I wrote a long explanation for what net neutrality actually was in the obama vs mcain thread.

Not to mention all the caps there putting in. I think by 2009 caps will pretty much be a industry standard. It will end up being metered just like you electric gets metered and you'll pay by usage.

I'm sure there are lots of sites that can't currently take advantage of the full speed available on say a FIOS connection. Can you download at 20Mbps on the PSN network?

And for the one's that point out Obama is for net neutrality, I think we have some bigger problems around here than a god damn web page loading faster than another one. That pretty low on the priority list.

A capped service would be a good idea.

that way your causal browsers literally just pay for what they use, your heavy downloaders pay for what they use.

companies will charge realistic prices. and the ISPs get the cash and influence to actually upgrade their network and put in better infrastructure.

the biggest problem at the moment are the £10 a month 8Mb unlimited unmetered internet packages. they suggest that I can max out my line 24*7 and in reality the companies offering these packages just don't have the infrastructure to deliver that promise to all their customers.

metering/capping surely is the only way forward.


most sites will take full advantange of their line speeds. don't forget, whilst I connect to a site and download at say 50bkps there may be hundreds of other people connecting as well. the reason that you can't see the 20MB to yourself is because that bandwidth is contended between other users.


and lastly... you might not care whether one site gets preferential treatment to another, but the businesses behind those sites do.

if CF took ten minutes to load every page I'd just stop coming here, I'd find another forum to post on, and this site would loose the ad views from my browsing.
if enough people leave the site goes under.

and no site, anywhere, ever is good enough to wait ten minute for pages to load.


congratulations for actually understanding what net neutrality is actually about though.

 

[Äߧý∩†H♠H䎀]

I think a lot of people are nitpicking what this so called preferential treatment would be. Do you really think sites that can't afford it are going to be brought down to 56k speeds?

Chances are good if your making your own site its not going to be the equivalent to myspace or youtube.

So does that mean your site should be able to output 20Mbps or will 10Mbps do?

Sites that have massive amounts of audio and video could really benefit from higher speeds. You pay for premium speeds on rapid share and other download clients don't you? This is pretty much the same concept. You get a basic service then a enhanced service for media sites. Basic will do just fine on the media sites but you have an option to go faster if you want to pay.

Everyone for net neutrality expects to go as fast as they can without paying. ISP's are in the business of making money and giving us as little as possible to keep us connected.