« prev   random   next »

4
11

Net Neutrality

By TwoScoopsOfWompWomp following x   2017 Dec 1, 2:55pm 1,708 views   46 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    






#Censorship #NetNeutrality #Politics

« First    « Previous    Comments 7 - 46 of 46    Last »

7   mell   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 6, 10:05am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

anon_08dee says
mell says
while the providers can't do anything wrt charging them more for taking advantage of most of the bandwidth.


Yes, exactly. Why can't the ISPs get some kind of monopoly on content as well as the fees for the connection. They should get it all.

Each person can stream at most one movie at a time. Why should Netflix and a handful of other people that won the race get to cash in leaving the cable, DSL and Dish out of the action ? Don't they get something for having control of the actual hardware that brings us the internet ? AT&T demands their taste. Common people !


Pretty daft. Why do mobile service provides throttle you after you used your 4g speed? Of course you are free to buy more..
8   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 6, 10:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

If that's your position, doesn't it make more sense to "nationalize" comcast etc. and make ISP a public utility? Who paid for the infrastructure? Who built the internet?
9   mell   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 6, 10:18am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

errc says
If that's your position, doesn't it make more sense to "nationalize" comcast etc. and make ISP a public utility? Who paid for the infrastructure? Who built the internet?


I agree with you in the sense that the companies who built the infrastructure never got their fair share, i.e. Juniper et al. And it could certainly be nationalized and probably run reasonably well as it was originating from the military in the first place. Of course there would be concerns of government censorship but we have them now as well. Not saying allowing companies to do whatever they want and block whomever they want is the holy grail, but if they do it solely based on traffic usage (and not content) why shouldn't they be allowed to have a tiered paying system and throttles?
12   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 10:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Some people are really getting upset over this:
I doubt it's real, but it's still pretty funny.

13   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 15, 10:49am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I don't think anyone who is against net neutrality understands it very well.
14   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 10:51am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

anon_7c0c9 says
I don't think anyone who is against net neutrality understands it very well.


Funny--I think the same thing about people who aren't against it.
15   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 11:06am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
It isn't Comcast or AT&T that are censoring speech on the internet.

Forget censorship.
ATT, Comcast and others are going to extort tons of money for delivering content.
They are regulating the access and there is nothing preventing them from putting a huge TOLL BOOTH on the road to your house with a fee they totally control and almost no competition.
First they will make Internet companies pay. Good you say.
Then they will make consumers pay, because it's never enough.
Expect soon to buy a package with the "Facebook service" the way you pay News networks packages, plus a Twitter option for an added $10/month.
What prevents them from doing it?
16   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 11:07am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

This is about layers of fat cats that you can't avoid paying just because of their position in the system.
17   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 11:20am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

Absolutely--they can charge an extra fee to access Netflix or youtube. It's not only about paying more for bandwidth.
18   HEYYOU   ignore (16)   2017 Dec 15, 11:20am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Net neutrality snowflakes won't do anything to help me execute the punishment for guilty hackers,
removal of hands with dull handsaws & no anesthesia.
There's no way the wonderful internet experience could be better without hacking.
At least the 18 intelligence agencies are protecting our privacy.

STFU! BITCHING & MOANING IDIOTS!
You will do nothing & have nothing.
You are the problem.
Stop buying anything on the internet & we will see if I'm wrong about the power of the dollar.

I'm only at DEFCON minus 1.
Assholes won't like DEFCON 4.
19   Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 15, 11:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

That's not true.

A little snark is OK even for anons. Just don't make it personal.

Clue: using the word "you" is probably a personal attack.
20   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 11:48am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

anon_7c0c9 says
So explain


HappyGilmore says
Absolutely--they can charge an extra fee to access Netflix or youtube. It's not only about paying more for bandwidth.


Or Patrick.net if they so choose.
21   mell   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 15, 12:29pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Expect soon to buy a package with the "Facebook service" the way you pay News networks packages, plus a Twitter option for an added $10/month.


Great! I'm all for it. Facetwat is clogging up the bandwith immensely while making the population dumber, leftoider and sadder. They can't charge enough for the FB package, maybe start at $100, better $1000 to save the kids.
22   mell   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 15, 12:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Imagine the deflated female fake-egos, built-up with fake-likes from bots and a horde of thirsty beta and omega schlobs. Suddenly no access to fake-likes anymore, this could be yuuuge!
23   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 12:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says

Great! I'm all for it. Facetwat is clogging up the bandwith immensely while making the population dumber, leftoider and sadder. They can't charge enough for the FB package, maybe start at $100, better $1000 to save the kids.

The point is: you will pay more one way or an other. It's a toll booth not a service on a free market.
24   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 12:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
Great! I'm all for it. Facetwat is clogging up the bandwith immensely while making the population dumber, leftoider and sadder. They can't charge enough for the FB package, maybe start at $100, better $1000 to save the kids.


Tell me again how it's the libtards that are superior and want to tell us how to live our lives?
25   mell   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 15, 12:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
mell says

Great! I'm all for it. Facetwat is clogging up the bandwith immensely while making the population dumber, leftoider and sadder. They can't charge enough for the FB package, maybe start at $100, better $1000 to save the kids.

The point is: you will pay more one way or an other. It's a toll booth not a service on a free market.


That was a bit ironic, I get your point. However it is no different than charging people for different service-tiers now, business, normal vs high-speed dsl etc. I doubt that there will be huge increases as there will be alternative providers jumping in, and they should have the right to charge those more that use services extensively that clog bandwidth. It's only fair to those that don't use it much. In any case I am split on it and I am sure there are better solutions than one way or the other, I'm sure if we take the time to think we can come up with something that is better than the two extremes.

HappyGilmore says
mell says
Great! I'm all for it. Facetwat is clogging up the bandwith immensely while making the population dumber, leftoider and sadder. They can't charge enough for the FB package, maybe start at $100, better $1000 to save the kids.


Tell me again how it's the libtards that are superior and want to tell us how to live our lives?


Sure. They do it almost everywhere. While FB is proven to be detrimental. I am not saying access to FaceTwat should be denied, that would be a leftoid thing,I am just saying providers should be free to charge what they want for it. That is not the same as denying access. Maybe we can take some of the added profits - should they charge more if NN i repealed - and fix our broken roads in SV.
26   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 15, 12:59pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

No one owns the internet and no one can selectively sell parts of it to increase their own profits.

Until now of course. Cable companies own the internet now since they hold a monopoly on the fastest pipelines and they will extort money for access to certain parts because they like money.
27   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 1:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
However it is no different than charging people for different service-tiers now, business, normal vs high-speed dsl etc. I

The difference is: right now the only features they can compete on are what they actually produce: bandwidth and price.
Now they will divert competition toward things they didn't produce: For example you might premium for normal access to Netflix even though your overall bandwidth is not better.

This is actually a good example of why the absence of regulation is not a good regulation.
28   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 1:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

This will also limit competition between existing Internet content/service providers (who can pay a premium to get bandwidth) and new entrants (who can't pay as much).
The effect will be to entrench existing players, not foster competition and innovation.
29   mell   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 15, 1:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
mell says
However it is no different than charging people for different service-tiers now, business, normal vs high-speed dsl etc. I

No, right now the only features they can compete on are what they actually produce: bandwidth and price.
Now they will divert competition toward things they didn't produce: For example you might premium for normal access to Netflix even though your overall bandwidth is not better.

This is actually a good example of why the absence of regulation is not a good regulation.


Disagree, they could also easily simply charge by bytes transferred both ways, that would surely be the fairest pricing. Why should I have reduced bandwidth because somebody binge-watches Netflix with their flat plan? They are already reaping the rewards for stuff they didn't build, e.g. a lot of the infrastructure is from Juniper. Not saying there's an easy solution, but I don't see how the current status is somehow the holy grail.
30   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 1:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
Disagree, they could also easily simply charge by bytes transferred both ways, that would surely be the fairest pricing. Why should I have reduced bandwidth because somebody binge-watches Netflix with their flat plan?

That's what they will tell you to justify it, but the fact is that different bytes have different values to you, and they are now allowed to use that fact to charge you more for these bytes.

mell says
Not saying there's an easy solution, but I don't see how the current status is somehow the holy grail.

Well in the current situation if you pay for the bandwidth and if you binge on Netflix, it's just your choice of how to use it. If you use a lot of bandwidth you pay more.
The bandwidth is what they are paid for and providing bandwidth for the lowest possible price is exactly what their role should be.
31   Booger   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 1:31pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

anon_7c0c9 says
Cable companies own the internet now since they hold a monopoly on the fastest pipelines and they will extort money for access to certain parts because they like money.


Buy stock in internet service providers.
32   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 15, 2:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
Sure. They do it almost everywhere. While FB is proven to be detrimental. I am not saying access to FaceTwat should be denied, that would be a leftoid thing,I am just saying providers should be free to charge what they want for it. That is not the same as denying access. Maybe we can take some of the added profits - should they charge more if NN i repealed - and fix our broken roads in SV.


Kind of like a soda tax to pay for health care for all the obese people?
33   mell   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 15, 2:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

HappyGilmore says
mell says
Sure. They do it almost everywhere. While FB is proven to be detrimental. I am not saying access to FaceTwat should be denied, that would be a leftoid thing,I am just saying providers should be free to charge what they want for it. That is not the same as denying access. Maybe we can take some of the added profits - should they charge more if NN i repealed - and fix our broken roads in SV.


Kind of like a soda tax to pay for health care for all the obese people?


Yeah kinda. But the providers could choose not to get those extended billing rights and thus not the surtax, so you could couple it at least with their gain. The soda-tax came out of nowhere. Also make both changes temporary, see how they work out.
34   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 15, 6:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
What prevents them from doing it?


First, if they throttle you they have to tell you.
Second, there is still the FTC.
Third, it creates conflict between Content Provider Monopolies and Cable Monopolies; in the breach it'll likely be better for consumers.

Right now Amazon/Google/Facebook call all the shots. They need an opposing commercial force.

All that happened is we went back to pre 2015 Internet. Was Comcast charging $500 to check Facebook back then?
35   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 15, 6:53pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

I've noticed a pattern. More than 50% of right wing memes contain a grade school level spelling or grammar error. Nonetheless, millions pass them on unedited.
36   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 15, 6:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick says
Clue: using the word "you" is probably a personal attack.


Like this?

Can "you" provide a link to that article?

How will the tax plan effect "you"?

Will "you" be going on vacation this year?

Does your company offer "you" a retirement plan?

What new car do "you" like?

Where do "you" go grocery shopping?

Can "you" give me a good stock pick?

If "you" were going to pick someone for president, who would "you" pick?

Like those type of personal attacks using "you"?
38   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 18, 9:11am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

That's an extremely strange opinion considering there are no laws against charging by the gigabyte and lots of ISPs do so. Unlimited data plans don't make logical sense and were only created so ISPs could milk more money out of casual users.

So I'd like to know in your world what forced means?
39   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 18, 10:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

zzyzzx says

What do you mean they are forced?
No they are not.
They sell bandwidth to customers for profit.
Customers pay a lot. Bandwidth is in fact already more expensive than in many other countries.
Then customers use it as they want to access services. Customers using Netflix paid for Netflix and also paid for the bandwidth.
Now Telcos use their position to extort Netflix which will pass that cost to customers.

If AT&T needs money maybe they can cut their dividend a bit. This is not money invested in their network.
40   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 18, 10:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
Second, there is still the FTC.
Third, it creates conflict between Content Provider Monopolies and Cable Monopolies; in the breach it'll likely be better for consumers.


No it will not: they will both agree to screw the customers. Like happens between healthcare providers and healthcare insurance. You still won't have a competitor to FB but you'll have to pay extra to access it.

The Telco will claim it's a favor they make to let you access it. They will sell it to you like an extra service, even though they added 0 value.
41   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 18, 11:13am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

anon_10224 says
More than 50% of right wing memes contain a grade school level spelling or grammar error. Nonetheless, millions pass them on unedited.


Meme generators make meme generation available to the masses!

Most graphic designers are liberals, so the fact that conservative leaning meme's are more prolific, and often do look really well made is even more impressive. A trend that will continue in 2018. Yes, my GF is a Graphic Designer (who is more conservative than I am BTW) and often points out some of the better memes to me.
42   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 18, 11:14am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
You still won't have a competitor to FB but you'll have to pay extra to access it.


I question as to exactly how many people will pay to access FaceBook. In fact, I would predict that if they tried to charge people to use it, it might die off pretty quickly. A free alternative would appear.
43   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 18, 11:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

zzyzzx says

I question as to exactly how many people will pay to access FaceBook. In fact, I would predict that if they tried to charge people to use it, it might die off pretty quickly. A free alternative would appear.

As long as the ISP decides that it should benefit from services it didn't create, a new "free service" could also be taxed quickly by the ISP.

The fact remains: the best organization of the market place is when companies compete based on the services THEY create, not extort a fee for access to others services based on their position in the ecosystem.
44   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 18, 11:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LIES LIES LIES: right wing speakers say "if you regulate anything you will get less of it."

They want you to pay extra for everything. Did you think that you are going to get more of it?

We are in the middle of an epic coup to accelerate extraction from people who work and pay taxes.

Right wing has had control of talk radio and too many other media sources like 24/7 Fox for too long now and it has metastasized into a people cheering for their own downfall.
45   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Dec 18, 12:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

zzyzzx says
I question as to exactly how many people will pay to access FaceBook. In fact, I would predict that if they tried to charge people to use it, it might die off pretty quickly. A free alternative would appear.


Maybe, maybe not. But what's to stop ISPs from becoming a cable TV model where you pay by tier? To get Netflix, you have to buy the highest tier which includes FB, LinkedIn, pinterest, etc. Whether you want them or not, you have to pay to get the one service you do want.

« First    « Previous    Comments 7 - 46 of 46    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions