Obama ruins the internet

Upchurch said:
You can pay for X connection speed, but you shouldn't expect to be able to actually use it?
Click to expand...

Well, it comes down to technicality for slower network speeds.

But no, I am a big proponent of people getting what they paid for. I do not know a whole lot about networking. I do know that if a network is at a slower speed, you would tend to have a much harder time d/l large packets of information at a time. Particularly streaming video can be problematic. From a technical standpoint, as I have said before, I can see throttling for certain data TYPES. But not against any particular data PROVIDER.

I would expect this to happen more often for those who are paying a lower price for a slower connection speed. I would be less reticent to expect that to occur for those shelling out more money for better a connection. Of course, I may be biased, as I pay top dollar for my internet. I do like the idea of considering "broadband" to be at minimum 25 mb/s. Anyone above that threshold, an ISP should not be allowed to throttle anything for any reason.
 
Last edited:
Nihilianth said:
But no, I am a big proponent of people getting what they paid for. I do not know a whole lot about networking. I do know that if a network is at a slower speed, you would tend to have a much harder time d/l large packets of information at a time. Particularly streaming video can be problematic. From a technical standpoint, as I have said before, I can see throttling for certain data TYPES. But not against any particular data PROVIDER.
Click to expand...

If your network usage is temporarily saturated, causing slowdowns, you should throttle down the heaviest users first to make room for others. Once the peak usage stops, you remove the throttle. If your network is constantly saturated, then you either need to expand the capacity to meet demand or stop offering speeds you cannot support.
 
bonzombiekitty said:
If your network usage is temporarily saturated, causing slowdowns, you should throttle down the heaviest users first to make room for others. Once the peak usage stops, you remove the throttle. If your network is constantly saturated, then you either need to expand the capacity to meet demand or stop offering speeds you cannot support.
Click to expand...

But then these corporations would have to "spend money!" Those poor bastards.

But I get what your saying. Which is why it makes sense why they would want to pass NN regulations targeting broadband, and to consider a certain cut-off point (25 mb/s) as "broadband."

Most people who have lower connection speeds, generally only care to look at FB or check email or their online financial records anyway.
 
Upchurch said:
I figured.

Also,

I completely misread your statement. I saw "...should not be able to..." and was responding to that. My apologies.
Click to expand...

Oh. I just thought you had misquoted me. I thought you were responding to the idea of people getting throttled if they are under 25 mb/s, and just quoted the wrong sentence.
 
FCC to Undo Net Neutrality Rules in December

The move to dismantle the rules, which has been expected for months, drew a mixed reaction. Many consumer groups are decrying the measure, while ISPs and telecom companies support the regulatory roll-back. (Web-based companies such as Google and Facebook generally favor net neutrality rules.)
Click to expand...

I don't want to hear a damn thing about Trump (or his appointees) being pro-business or working to create jobs. This BS is the exact opposite of that and pure corruption.
 
Upchurch said:
FCC to Undo Net Neutrality Rules in December



I don't want to hear a damn thing about Trump (or his appointees) being pro-business or working to create jobs. This BS is the exact opposite of that and pure corruption.
Click to expand...


Kind of interesting when looked at beside the Trump DoJ's objections to the AT&T/Time Warner merger, which is purported because of their fears of exactly the kind of control that net neutrality rules are designed to prevent.

Mebbe sheds some doubt on the sincerity of their objections.
 
Trebuchet said:
It's pro-(some very large businesses that support the administration with contributions) of course.
Click to expand...

Polling I've seen suggests that Republican voters aren't even really in favor of it. Seems like something solely driven by special interest groups.
 
AG Schneiderman investigating FCC

This is amazing. The AG said hundreds of thousands of real New Yorkers and other Americans identities were used to agree with rolling back net neutrality.
:jaw-dropp


Here is a link to an open letter from AG Schneiderman to Ajit Pai

https://medium.com/@AGSchneiderman/an-open-letter-to-the-fcc-b867a763850a

An excerpt:

Specifically, for six months my office has been investigating who perpetrated a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities. Such conduct likely violates state law — yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed.
Click to expand...
 
Nihilianth said:
I do know that if a network is at a slower speed, you would tend to have a much harder time d/l large packets of information at a time. Particularly streaming video can be problematic. From a technical standpoint, as I have said before, I can see throttling for certain data TYPES. But not against any particular data PROVIDER.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "throttling for certain data types" in this statement. Data is generally broken up into TCP and UDP traffic, with streaming being UDP. Generally if you're throttled it's all data, or data from a specific location on the net. If you reach X amount of data usage you start to get throttled, or if you're streaming from X website then that web traffic will be throttled based on where it's coming from.

Nihilianth said:
I would expect this to happen more often for those who are paying a lower price for a slower connection speed. I would be less reticent to expect that to occur for those shelling out more money for better a connection. Of course, I may be biased, as I pay top dollar for my internet. I do like the idea of considering "broadband" to be at minimum 25 mb/s. Anyone above that threshold, an ISP should not be allowed to throttle anything for any reason.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't completely agree with this as I don't think they should be allowed to throttle anyone at all. Either provide internet, or don't. Everyone should get the same access the only thing the provider should be able to sell is the speed at which they get it, and the only throttling should be with regards to that speed. It shouldn't depend where the traffic is coming from at all. If you pay for 25 mbps then that's what you get. If you pay for 50 mbps then that's what you get. The person with 25 shouldn't get robbed to give more bandwidth to the guy with 50 just because he pays more. I think I understood that properly, if I didn't feel free to correct me.
 
Civet said:
Polling I've seen suggests that Republican voters aren't even really in favor of it. Seems like something solely driven by special interest groups.
Click to expand...

The fact that people on both sides of the aisle use the internet and don't want to be charged extra for going on certain sites, etc. might have something to do with it.
 
Argumemnon said:
The fact that people on both sides of the aisle use the internet and don't want to be charged extra for going on certain sites, etc. might have something to do with it.
Click to expand...

What the ISP’s have said is that (for now) they don’t want to charge their users any more they are only looking to charge additional fees to companies who provide services over the internet. Since these charges will end up being passed onto consumers via higher prices anyway, maybe Twitter should cover the costs by adding a surcharge to tweets from selected users…
 
"Net Neutrality" means corporations can't pay to manipulate how you use the internet (Look at your porn).
If this goes away, not only will all your data (Porn) be scrutinized by telecom companies, they can decide how fast your internet works on certain websites unless you pay more (Your porn won't load).
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
What the ISP’s have said is that (for now) they don’t want to charge their users any more they are only looking to charge additional fees to companies who provide services over the internet. Since these charges will end up being passed onto consumers via higher prices anyway, maybe Twitter should cover the costs by adding a surcharge to tweets from selected users…
Click to expand...
The other aspect of this is that Twitter, for example, could pay to slow down user access to any new Twitter competitors, thus stifling competition and innovation.

Captain_Swoop said:
"Net Neutrality" means corporations can't pay to manipulate how you use the internet (Look at your porn).
If this goes away, not only will all your data (Porn) be scrutinized by telecom companies, they can decide how fast your internet works on certain websites unless you pay more (Your porn won't load).
Click to expand...
Hate to tell ya, but the telcoms can already scrutinize your traffic. What changes is that the will also have the opportunity to set a premium price for different kinds of traffic (e.g. your porn) or, if you don't pay, shut off access (e.g. no more porn).
 
Upchurch said:
The other aspect of this is that Twitter, for example, could pay to slow down user access to any new Twitter competitors, thus stifling competition and innovation.
Click to expand...

They can't pay to have someone else slowed down, but they can pay to make sure that they are always faster, which at the end of the day achieves the same result.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
How would that not violate anti-trust law?
Click to expand...

Would it be that different than soft drink or snack vendors paying a premium to have all, or nearly all, the shelf space in a supermarket? If they can get away with it, I’ve no doubt web based companies could as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom