Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Net Neutrality. What could be an über issue.
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Wolfo



Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:36 am    Post subject: Net Neutrality. What could be an über issue. Reply with quote

Hi. I'm Wolfo. This is my first actual post here. Hopefully, it also won't be my last.

Wiki

The other night I was watching t.v., as per usual. And, from nowhere, I see a commercial saying that "net neutrality" is nothing but a gimmick that will end up costing the average consumer more money. And, that it more or less was a bad thing. Sadly, the average citizen in the U.S. will likely believe this message since they generally aren't intelligent enough to question what the all mighty t.v. tells them is right or wrong. Besides, according the the commercial it's going to cost them money. So of course it's a bad thing.

And sadly, it doesn't look like the net will remain "neutral".
Clicky.

What you could do to possibly help.

So yeah, I've got no idea where the hell I was going with this. And no, I'm not some random drone sent here by them to get support. I just remembered the commercial from last name and figured that intelligent people may help?
*shrug*

Discuss.
~Wolfo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9182

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:27 am    Post subject: Both Ways Bob is in full swing here Reply with quote

It's the beginning of the election season. I guess that commercials dismissing net neutrality as a gimmick that 'costs taxpayers money' is merely a hint of the sordid Lowest Common Denominating to come.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kame



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2565
Location: Alba Nuadh

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The net neutrality people has Alyssa Milano on their side ... HOW COULD THEY LOSE?

Yes ... let's allow corporations decide what we get to see on the interweb, I foresee no conflicts of interest there. It's going to be as great as when they de-regulated power in California!

Personally, I'd prefer the government to police the internet, they're usually too stupid to get anything done. So the status quo remains in place.
_________________
bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Drui



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Location: 'Jersey :}

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I very much enjoyed the full-page ad in the NY Times that MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition united to create...

Tada.
_________________
fight
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Egregius



Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 171

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice ad. Of course, there are good arguments for both sides, since the anti-neutrality people could point out that high volume sites/traffic, like bittorent and youtube could slow down the internet in general and cause congestions in the tubes. The owners of the cable want to be able to say 'youtube gets a little slower, so sites at least load at a reasonable pace'.

But then again, if the anti net-neutrality people have to claim net-neutrality would cost extra money, while it's basically the status-quo (albeit shaky status quo)...you have to wonder whose side you want to be on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10065
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Egregius wrote:
Nice ad. Of course, there are good arguments for both sides, since the anti-neutrality people could point out that high volume sites/traffic, like bittorent and youtube could slow down the internet in general and cause congestions in the tubes. The owners of the cable want to be able to say 'youtube gets a little slower, so sites at least load at a reasonable pace'.

But then again, if the anti net-neutrality people have to claim net-neutrality would cost extra money, while it's basically the status-quo (albeit shaky status quo)...you have to wonder whose side you want to be on.


Yes, but this cost is already being paid on the content provider end: The more traffic your site gets, the more it cost you to maintain. Period. This is sinply an excuse for the network providers to make more money without really having to do anything. Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3152

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The same reason people in tipped positions around the country (not on the west coast thankfully) dont have to be paid minimum wage. So that the business can pocket more cash.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DavidsonX



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuZ7Dfd_-Q0

My take on the issue.
Bottom line: The government shouldn't mess around with something they don't quite understand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MsFrisby



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3966
Location: a quiet little corner of crazy

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Egregius wrote:
Nice ad. Of course, there are good arguments for both sides, since the anti-neutrality people could point out that high volume sites/traffic, like bittorent and youtube could slow down the internet in general and cause congestions in the tubes. The owners of the cable want to be able to say 'youtube gets a little slower, so sites at least load at a reasonable pace'.

But then again, if the anti net-neutrality people have to claim net-neutrality would cost extra money, while it's basically the status-quo (albeit shaky status quo)...you have to wonder whose side you want to be on.


lollers
_________________
A person's character is their destiny.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
DavidsonX



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 11872
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oddly enough the "series of tubes" metaphor is actually pretty appropriate given the architecture of networks. That doesn't mean it'll take days for an internet to reach your office because the tubes are clogged, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Drui



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Location: 'Jersey :}

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Egregius wrote:
Nice ad. Of course, there are good arguments for both sides, since the anti-neutrality people could point out that high volume sites/traffic, like bittorent and youtube could slow down the internet in general and cause congestions in the tubes. The owners of the cable want to be able to say 'youtube gets a little slower, so sites at least load at a reasonable pace'.

But then again, if the anti net-neutrality people have to claim net-neutrality would cost extra money, while it's basically the status-quo (albeit shaky status quo)...you have to wonder whose side you want to be on.


Yes, but this cost is already being paid on the content provider end: The more traffic your site gets, the more it cost you to maintain. Period. This is sinply an excuse for the network providers to make more money without really having to do anything. Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad

My thoughts exactly. Besides, why slow down the most popular sites so that less popular sites load faster? Isn't that the best way to piss off the most people?
_________________
fight
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Drui wrote:
Darqcyde wrote:
Egregius wrote:
Nice ad. Of course, there are good arguments for both sides, since the anti-neutrality people could point out that high volume sites/traffic, like bittorent and youtube could slow down the internet in general and cause congestions in the tubes. The owners of the cable want to be able to say 'youtube gets a little slower, so sites at least load at a reasonable pace'.

But then again, if the anti net-neutrality people have to claim net-neutrality would cost extra money, while it's basically the status-quo (albeit shaky status quo)...you have to wonder whose side you want to be on.


Yes, but this cost is already being paid on the content provider end: The more traffic your site gets, the more it cost you to maintain. Period. This is sinply an excuse for the network providers to make more money without really having to do anything. Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad

My thoughts exactly. Besides, why slow down the most popular sites so that less popular sites load faster? Isn't that the best way to piss off the most people?


They wouldn't care as long as the premium price sites would have to pay without net neutrality brings in more revenue than the loss of users going to other providers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Drui



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Location: 'Jersey :}

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bart wrote:
They wouldn't care as long as the premium price sites would have to pay without net neutrality brings in more revenue than the loss of users going to other providers.

You're absolutely right, and it's a scary thing.
_________________
fight
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

this is merely a press to make the internet a 100% pay site.

anything free today is subscription tomorrow, and that creates the wall street wonder that all the idiots and savants wet-dreamed in 1990.

investorama, baby
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group