http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/9873757f97/porn-star-net-neutrality
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/9873757f97/porn-star-net-neutrality[/quote]
Haha…that was pretty good.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
It isn’t about whether they are a monopoly across the US, they are a monopoly in many of the markets they serve (65% of the population has only one or two choices of broadband providers).
[/quote]
Exactly. [/quote]
So a couple million pissed off customers won’t encourage someone to work into the depressed area then?[/quote]
In an ideal world, absolutely.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s incredible how closed minded you’re being. [/quote]
This is more fun that way.
I’ll be honest. You guys are going to get your wish. Both parties want this, and are licking their chops to control the content of the internet.
And so on and so forth a bunch of neckbeards in desperate need for Lord of The Ring 13 HD to be streamed at impeccable speed called forth and invited the destruction of the last libertarian paradise the world has seen. [/quote]
Sadly you are probably right.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Dear Google,
Now that we have a republican POTUS, and he has appointed me, former head of Comcast to the chair of the FCC, we have determined that due to your obvious leftist leanings, your fiber no longer meets the requirements for environmental infrastructure concerns, you allow pornographic content that involves little people with donkeys and you haven’t given a fast enough speed to our top donors, therefore you ISP license has been revoked until you remedy these situations or donate to the reelection fund of the following list of senators and congressman:
Sincerely FCC
January 30th, 2028[/quote]
Counter:
Dear Fox,
The success of your new TV series Gotham has resulted in increased traffic to Fox.com. In light of this we’ve decided to charge you $1,000,000 per stream per device. If you do not comply we will reduce the speed of all data transmitted on our network from fox.com to 1/kb per second.
Sincerely ComcastTMCoxCenturyLinkVerizon, Inc.
January 30th, 2028 [/quote]
Dear ComcastTMCoxCenturyLinkVerizon, Inc.
It has come to our attention that Blue Anus startup is ready to merge with Velvet Jones and Google. We’ll be giving the exclusive rights to all our programing, including the NFL to them, and pulling all our advertising revenue if you refuse to stream our show at the speeds you previously did. As you know, cable customers have grown tired of paying for your shitty services for the last couple decades, and we plan on starting our own cable and ISP service.
Please call the now defunct MSNBC and CNN and ask them what happened when we challenged their news superiority.
Sincerely, People that still have bargaining power because the government didn’t take it away, Fox. [/quote]
Dear Fox,
Clever; however, we control 99% of the broadband data flow (both wired and wireless) in the U.S. and have decided to drop our price for all customers to $5 a year. Good luck with your start-up.
Sincerely,
The Monopoly, Inc.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
Beans, do you think it would be fair for Comcast (your one-and-only choice of broadband in this hypothetical) to block all sites that speak negatively of Comcast?[/quote]
Fair? No.
Do I think the government will prevent that effectively? Nope. They’ll just block different shit.[/quote]
So that’s what you think is actually on the table? The FCC is going to dictate what site you can and cannot visit? You do realize that the FCC thus far has gone the opposite direction and been considering siding with the ISPs from a regulatory perspective and that’s why this has become a mainstream issue, right?
[/quote]
The problem with the government getting involved is it also at some level represents a conflict of interest. They are going to allow access to terrorist websites? What about pill mills, drug websites of any kind, anti-government websites, the KKK, and pretty much any nefarious information representing potentially illegal activities?
You may or may not agree with these websites existence, or what they say or represent, but they do have a right to exist in terms of freedom of speech.
The problem is that people whom I vehemently disagree with have a right to exist and say what they want on the web. The government controlling traffic would be in a precarious situation with regards to this, particularly when it’s advocating or celebrating the breaking of federal laws. You may not have a right to break the law, but you have the right to talk about it.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
Beans, do you think it would be fair for Comcast (your one-and-only choice of broadband in this hypothetical) to block all sites that speak negatively of Comcast?[/quote]
Fair? No.
Do I think the government will prevent that effectively? Nope. They’ll just block different shit.[/quote]
So that’s what you think is actually on the table? The FCC is going to dictate what site you can and cannot visit? You do realize that the FCC thus far has gone the opposite direction and been considering siding with the ISPs from a regulatory perspective and that’s why this has become a mainstream issue, right?
[/quote]
The problem with the government getting involved is it also at some level represents a conflict of interest. They are going to allow access to terrorist websites? What about pill mills, drug websites of any kind, anti-government websites, the KKK, and pretty much any nefarious information representing potentially illegal activities?
You may or may not agree with these websites existence, or what they say or represent, but they do have a right to exist in terms of freedom of speech.
The problem is that people whom I vehemently disagree with have a right to exist and say what they want on the web. The government controlling traffic would be in a precarious situation with regards to this, particularly when it’s advocating or celebrating the breaking of federal laws. You may not have a right to break the law, but you have the right to talk about it.[/quote]
Ya I agree with you Pat and hadn’t really thought along these line before.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
Beans, do you think it would be fair for Comcast (your one-and-only choice of broadband in this hypothetical) to block all sites that speak negatively of Comcast?[/quote]
Fair? No.
Do I think the government will prevent that effectively? Nope. They’ll just block different shit.[/quote]
So that’s what you think is actually on the table? The FCC is going to dictate what site you can and cannot visit? You do realize that the FCC thus far has gone the opposite direction and been considering siding with the ISPs from a regulatory perspective and that’s why this has become a mainstream issue, right?
[/quote]
The problem with the government getting involved is it also at some level represents a conflict of interest. They are going to allow access to terrorist websites? What about pill mills, drug websites of any kind, anti-government websites, the KKK, and pretty much any nefarious information representing potentially illegal activities?
You may or may not agree with these websites existence, or what they say or represent, but they do have a right to exist in terms of freedom of speech.
The problem is that people whom I vehemently disagree with have a right to exist and say what they want on the web. The government controlling traffic would be in a precarious situation with regards to this, particularly when it’s advocating or celebrating the breaking of federal laws. You may not have a right to break the law, but you have the right to talk about it.[/quote]
Ya I agree with you Pat and hadn’t really thought along these line before. [/quote]
Yep, agreed. Good points Pat.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s incredible how closed minded you’re being. [/quote]
This is more fun that way.
I’ll be honest. You guys are going to get your wish. Both parties want this, and are licking their chops to control the content of the internet.
And so on and so forth a bunch of neckbeards in desperate need for Lord of The Ring 13 HD to be streamed at impeccable speed called forth and invited the destruction of the last libertarian paradise the world has seen. [/quote]
Sadly you are probably right. [/quote]
That’s the thing…I don’t want any of this shit either. I don’t want the government stepping in and controlling how the internet functions. So while I rail against what I have to pay Comcast every month as they are my only choice, I could probably live with it (as long as they stop increasing the damn price every year).
But at the same time, the recent court decision is the proverbial “straw” that breaks the camel’s back. It puts too much power in the hands of the ISPs.
The real problem here is the “last mile”. That’s what costs so much to build out and ends up creating monopolies. In a perfect world where that last mile wasn’t an issue, the amount of competition sitting at the data centers at the end of that last mile would be staggering. We could pick and choose which would provide us the service we needed.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
The real problem here is the “last mile”. That’s what costs so much to build out and ends up creating monopolies. In a perfect world where that last mile wasn’t an issue, the amount of competition sitting at the data centers at the end of that last mile would be staggering. We could pick and choose which would provide us the service we needed.
[/quote]
It’s actually funny that you say that. I am literally 1 mile from a Comcast line, but they won’t run a line to our neighborhood (about 25 houses). Not enough return for the investment.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s incredible how closed minded you’re being. [/quote]
This is more fun that way.
I’ll be honest. You guys are going to get your wish. Both parties want this, and are licking their chops to control the content of the internet.
And so on and so forth a bunch of neckbeards in desperate need for Lord of The Ring 13 HD to be streamed at impeccable speed called forth and invited the destruction of the last libertarian paradise the world has seen. [/quote]
Sadly you are probably right. [/quote]
That’s the thing…I don’t want any of this shit either. I don’t want the government stepping in and controlling how the internet functions. So while I rail against what I have to pay Comcast every month as they are my only choice, I could probably live with it (as long as they stop increasing the damn price every year).
But at the same time, the recent court decision is the proverbial “straw” that breaks the camel’s back. It puts too much power in the hands of the ISPs.
The real problem here is the “last mile”. That’s what costs so much to build out and ends up creating monopolies. In a perfect world where that last mile wasn’t an issue, the amount of competition sitting at the data centers at the end of that last mile would be staggering. We could pick and choose which would provide us the service we needed.
[/quote]
Yeah, Pat has pretty much nailed why I’ve chosen the “fuck the government” side and argued as such.
What we need is an improvement in technology, wireless or whatever the computer nerds come up with. That will reduce the ISP’s bargaining power and bring in competition, if we can reduce the cost burden to enter the marketplace.
Bringing in the government rarely results in such development. Companies making serious bank typically does. Because people want a share of that pie.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
So that’s what you think is actually on the table? The FCC is going to dictate what site you can and cannot visit? [/quote]
Tomorrow? No. Eventually? Yes.
Didn’t the Senate already try and pass a law recently that would have regulated speech on the internet? I believe it was Feinstein that argued how dangerous the internet was and how it made a “global terror network” possible recently. They are already setting the table for this, and the Net Neutrality is the way they will convince the American people to invite this into their lives with arms wide open.
We’re talking about the same government that signed the Patriot Act, twice. A law who’s name is the most absurd contradiction I’ve ever seen. TWICE!
[quote] You do realize that the FCC thus far has gone the opposite direction and been considering siding with the ISPs from a regulatory perspective and that’s why this has become a mainstream issue, right?
[/quote]
Yes, because the head is in the ISP’s pocket. Had he been in someone else’s it’d be a different argument.
This is an interesting article about Local Loop Unbundling. It would entail forcing the incumbent ISPs, the ones that laid the cables to people’s homes & businesses, to lease their lines to other ISPs. This is the way it was done before cable became a major player in providing internet service; where you had the choice of dial-up or DSL ISPs who would lease the lines from your local telco.
Requires quite of bit of change (read: regulation) from how things are done now, but there’s some good arguments made. There’s also good info in there both for and against NN.
And while I believe there is very good wireless technology on the horizon (expansion of LTE, whatever Google’s planning with their blimps, etc.), wireless will never outperform wired. It might get “good enough” but it will not be better. Either way, it’s competition that is sorely needed.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
And while I believe there is very good wireless technology on the horizon (expansion of LTE, whatever Google’s planning with their blimps, etc.), wireless will never outperform wired. It might get “good enough” but it will not be better. Either way, it’s competition that is sorely needed.[/quote]
lol, You’d know better than I but people in 1819 would have laughed and said never about landing on the moon. And now I hold as much computer power as was used to do so in the palm of my hand and play fruit ninja with it…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
And while I believe there is very good wireless technology on the horizon (expansion of LTE, whatever Google’s planning with their blimps, etc.), wireless will never outperform wired. It might get “good enough” but it will not be better. Either way, it’s competition that is sorely needed.[/quote]
lol, You’d know better than I but people in 1819 would have laughed and said never about landing on the moon. And now I hold as much computer power as was used to do so in the palm of my hand and play fruit ninja with it…
[/quote]
I agree, but unless the wired network is neglected, wireless generally will underperform a dedicated wired connection. The stuff they are doing with DSL now with just a measly, crappy pair of twisted copper lines is staggering compared to even 10 years ago. The technology at the ends of the wires is improving at the same clip as wireless.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
Beans, do you think it would be fair for Comcast (your one-and-only choice of broadband in this hypothetical) to block all sites that speak negatively of Comcast?[/quote]
Fair? No.
Do I think the government will prevent that effectively? Nope. They’ll just block different shit.[/quote]
So that’s what you think is actually on the table? The FCC is going to dictate what site you can and cannot visit? You do realize that the FCC thus far has gone the opposite direction and been considering siding with the ISPs from a regulatory perspective and that’s why this has become a mainstream issue, right?
[/quote]
The problem with the government getting involved is it also at some level represents a conflict of interest. They are going to allow access to terrorist websites? What about pill mills, drug websites of any kind, anti-government websites, the KKK, and pretty much any nefarious information representing potentially illegal activities?
You may or may not agree with these websites existence, or what they say or represent, but they do have a right to exist in terms of freedom of speech.
The problem is that people whom I vehemently disagree with have a right to exist and say what they want on the web. The government controlling traffic would be in a precarious situation with regards to this, particularly when it’s advocating or celebrating the breaking of federal laws. You may not have a right to break the law, but you have the right to talk about it.[/quote]
Ya I agree with you Pat and hadn’t really thought along these line before. [/quote]
Yep, agreed. Good points Pat.
[/quote]
Thanks yall 