Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
The ISP can and does charge people based on the speed they offer. That is the method to throttle, not data caps. And offering services that are not subject to those caps are monopolistic behavior, which is anti-capitalist. Communists and socialists would hate Net Neutrality when the strawman arguments are dropped.Originally Posted by Eric P
Just quick-scan it...you'll get enough of the gist of the article in 1/4 the time/effort.
Yes, I'm quit aware of the definition of the concept of net neutrality. I only play dumb.
I was hoping you'd expand on why you believe it's so important and to see if you fully grasp the side effects of this concept.
They can get away with anything they desire. Golden rule and all - he who has the gold makes the rules. To believe that government managed "net neutrality" would restrict the government in any way is purely naive.
Ginsue - Admin
Proud Infidel Since 1965
"You can't spell genius without Ginsue." -Ray1970, Apr 2020
Ginsue's Feedback
As stated, Net Neutrality would upset communists and socialists, as well as those in bed with the big corporations, so how does that get interpreted as me supporting government management? Opposite day maybe?
I think you're off the mark here. Net Neutrality (as I understand it) is important because it gives me equal access to ALL internet sites. People are dropping cable and satelite providers left and right because they are tired of paying for packages in order to get channels that they want. If I could get Cartoon Network, HBO, and Comedy Central separately, I'd be happy. If I could have access to ALL channels, and only watch the ones I wanted to, I'd be even more happy. Instead, I have to pick from pre-selected packages of channels I don't care for, and have to pay for larger, even less interesting packages in order to get one or two channels that I am interested in. The internet has had a profound effect on the person I am today, and nearly everything I've learned in the past ten years has been from the internet, from sites like this, to especially Youtube. If suddenly I'm forced to pay for some internet package that has 100 sports websites that I don't give a shit about, just to have access to Youtube, saying that I would be an unhappy camper would be a grave understatement.
At this very moment I'm working out the best way I can cancel cable and switch to a net streaming box so I can have ALL the media I wish. Of course the above mentioned would quickly put an end to that.
This is one of those things that causes an strong internal war within me. I feel VERY strongly about net neutrality, but of course I feel equally as strongly about government meddling in private business. So what to do? I was one of those voices who petitioned about net neutrality, and will continue to do so because I feel strongly about it. It's a fine line though. I'm desperate to maintain the internet I have, but am not asking the government to do anything about it (although I think that last petition I e-signed is probably the same as asking for government interference). In all likelihood, if service providers do what is best for their short term profits, someone WILL come up with something else, and it will only be a matter of time. A time which everyone else must suffer.
I feel like Obama is trying to frame this issue in such a way as the government will make some sort of restriction that is as broad and as little of an interference as possible. This is a smart move as far as gaining support. People aren't okay with the government forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding, but most people are perfectly okay with zoning laws preventing a company from purchasing your neighbor's house, razing it, and building a gas station in the middle of the neighborhood.
Last edited by Irving; 11-11-2014 at 00:06.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Keep the gov't entirely out of it. That's how it remains "open and free." This applies to anything I can think of.
"America is at that awkward stage: It's too late to work within the system, and too early to shoot the bastards."
-Claire Wolfe
"I got a shotgun, rifle, and a four-wheel drive, and a country boy can survive."
-Hank Williams Jr.
Feedback
Unfortunately not in the USA. Our infrastructure is completely monopoly based. Compare it to places like Japan, Korea, etc. We're basically operating with super expensive third-world commercialized crap. Anyone besides the big corporations that tries to get into it gets sued.
FIFY. Why do we need the government involved in this?
Stella - my best girl ever.
11/04/1994 - 12/23/2010
Don't wanna get shot by the police?
"Stop Resisting Arrest!"
Wasn't one of the original precepts of net neutrality related to content? I think I remember reading a story about a blog or website that was obviously conservative and that endorsed conservatives and the theme was something about unfair campaign practices due to the unregulated nature of the web.
Therein lies the rub- I don't believe them, they're out for more revenue and control (power). Oh and you covered the Socialist aspect as well- they want to re-define Net Neutrality to mean that everyone has a RIGHT to BROADBAND internet access, even if they can't afford to pay for it.
^^^^THIS, Internet service providers have to spend billions collectively to build, operate, expand and maintain the internet- the equipment used is VERY expensive at the data rates in the core (100Gbps+)... so to expect them to provide the service for any fixed fees (including content provider fees) will only lead to lost profit, which then leads to lost budgets, which then leads to "Third world crap"
Umm, since when are communists/socialists and big corporations on the same side? You seem to be somehow confused about what Net Neutrality actually means.
Source?
The Infrastructure is not "Ours", it is paid for by publicly traded Corporations- so you could own part of it if you buy their stock, but the notion that the Internet infrastructure that was BOUGHT and PAID for by those publicly traded Corporations belongs to users of the internet is pretty much the definition of Communism.
One recent example that illustrates the Net Neutrality argument (as some would define it is the Netflix complaints to certain providers that they are being throttled by some ISPs, while Netflix traffic makes up around 1/3 of ALL internet traffic (including Pr0n) during peak periods.
To help illustrate, I would ask: "How many internet core routers does Netflix own?" The answer is zero.
So while there are millions of Netflix subscribers that are paying their ISPs for access to the internet, what is Netflix paying? (since they don't own the internet core)
The problem is they were only paying a handful of ISP originally, and were very slow to expand that...
Source: http://qz.com/256586/the-inside-stor...ernet-traffic/Netflix attempted to address congested routes into Comcast by purchasing all available transit capacity from transit providers that did not pay access fees to Comcast—which involved agreements with Cogent, Level 3, NTT, TeliaSonera, Tata, and X0 Communications. Although all six of those providers sold transit to the entire Internet, only three of them—Cogent, Level 3, and Tata—had direct connections to Comcast’s network.
So they chose to blame Comcast for "throttling", rather than purchasing a direct connection to Comcast in order to service their customers there... This also applied to FIOS (Verizon), Centurylink and other cable providers... it was pretty much the same story.
To summarize, if Netflix wants to use 1/3 of core internet providers available bandwidth, they should be a customer of them as well if they want ensure their service has enough internal bandwidth to support it.
The right way to handle this is to have the content moved to cache servers at the network edge, or use multicast, rather than carrying the same movie MILLIONS of times simultaneously... but the movie industry won't allow that, because they're concerned that the lower security would lead to people stealing their copyrighted property. (which is happening anyway)
So I blame the entertainment industry just as much as Netflix for the issues around their service.
I believe Netflix has been trying to implement this model by offering their content servers to be installed at ISPs "for free" (but they don't want to pay equipment co-location fees, either)... so what you hear in public isn't the full reality of what's going on between these companies.
Last edited by 68Charger; 11-11-2014 at 09:29.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, we are the III%, CIP2, and some other catchphrase meant to aggravate progreSSives who are hell bent on taking rights away...
The biggest problem with "net neutrality" is that its an amorphous term that doesn't mean the same thing every time its invoked. Its like saying "gun safety" ... to us "gun safety" is the 4 rules, to a progressive "gun safety" is absolute gun control.
I don't trust Democrats and especially not Obama and his fellow travelers. He uses the term "net neutrality" because it sounds nice, and certain definitions of it are a good thing. But the reality is he doesn't believe in liberty or an open anything so I guarantee you whatever "net neutrality" scheme he's putting forward will be designed to give government more power over speech and more ability to tax.
Modern liberalism is based on the idea that reality is obligated to conform to one's beliefs because; "I have the right to believe whatever I want".
"Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people."
-Penn Jillette
A World Without Guns <- Great Read!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
