Wave goodbye to Internet freedom

Alan said:
I wonder what would happen to the download speeds of the sites that ericsnow loves if they can't pay the internet service providers enough. Hmmm....
Click to expand...

They'll simply ask their sheeple for donations to fight what can only be concrete evidence of the NWO at work.
 
ericsnow said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/wave-goodbye-to-internet-freedom/
Click to expand...

You do realize that net neutrality requires zero red-tape? It's a simple rule: corporations with monopolies or near-monopolies on ISP customers aren't allowed to extort websites and web services. Simply put, an ISP can't force a 3rd party website, like http://www.washingtontimes.com to pay a fee so that the ISP users have any access to their website.

It's a rule that prevents bad business practices.

Net Neutrality is what you have right now. Do you really want your ISP telling YOU that you can't visit a specific website because that website hasn't paid the extortion fee?
 
Ziggurat said:
Source?
Click to expand...

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/top20_broad_2008.html

Hmm, they were doing better some years ago.

Seems my information is a bit old, as they were doing much better relative to the U.S., but their policy became U.S.-like and so they've suffered:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Canada-Mirrors-US-Broadband-Policy-Gets-Same-Crap-Results-107005 (I can get other links on this general thing).

Hence, Canada and the U.S. have been suffering in terms of price/performance:

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0905/

I'd be happy if we just ensured line-sharing and put proper funding towards developing broadband connections.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Huh. We're ahead of Japan in terms of broadband subscribers, even though our speeds are considerably less. So maybe density is more relevant to speed (my source) than it is to subscription rate (your source).

In any case, we should expect lots of factors to affect these numbers, so straight country-to-country comparisons aren't necessarily terribly informative.
Click to expand...

However, when you look at other factors, such as government involvement and competition, it does provide reasons for why we aren't doing well. Lack of line-sharing makes it more monopolistic, which means service is provided less efficiently for instance.
 
Say goodbye to the internet, period. It's going to be hacked to death, while simultaneously being hopelessly infected by multitudes of scammers who will jam it up so bad it will come to a complete, grinding halt.
 
Upchurch said:
Is anyone here actually against Network Neutrality? If so, what do you think it is?
Click to expand...

ericsnow is, I guess. Does that mean AJ is against it too? That wouldn't be too surprising in a "everything the government does is evil" sense.
 
Random said:
Ironically, the author of this editorial actually hits the solution to the problem on the head but is too busy ranting to realize it. Have ISPs charge more for downloading more. I can't imagine anyone really objecting to that. We already do it that way with electricity, phones and water. Letting ISPs choose what can and can't be downloaded is stupid.
Click to expand...
Consumers rejected that business model long ago. Remember those "1000 free minutes" cds AOL sent you every few days?
 
Drachasor said:
It's not density. Canada easily beats us too.
Click to expand...
Not a real good comparison. 90% of the population of Canada is concentrated within 100 miles of the US border, it's not like they're anywhere close to evenly distributed throughout Canada.
 
Random said:
Have ISPs charge more for downloading more. I can't imagine anyone really objecting to that. We already do it that way with electricity, phones and water.
Click to expand...
WildCat said:
Consumers rejected that business model long ago. Remember those "1000 free minutes" cds AOL sent you every few days?
Click to expand...
?? "Minutes" is nothing to do with volume of bytes. What the first quote alludes to is the way it is charged in the UK. You pay more for speed and also more for volume. Are you saying that domestic and business customers in the states pay the same whether they use 50MB or gobble 2TB in a month? Surely not.
 
Francesca R said:
?? "Minutes" is nothing to do with volume of bytes. What the first quote alludes to is the way it is charged in the UK. You pay more for speed and also more for volume. Are you saying that domestic and business customers in the states pay the same whether they use 50MB or gobble 2TB in a month? Surely not.
Click to expand...

From a consumer's perspective, yes. You pay a flat monthly fee for internet service - its speed might be capped, but you can download as much as you want. Some mobile providers - such as AT&T - have begun instituting data caps for their mobile broadband service, but this has not translated to home ISPs yet.

Now, it's different when we're talking about server co-location, hosting providers like GoDaddy, etc. In those cases you usually get charged extra if your bandwidth exceeds a certain limit.
 
Francesca R said:
?? "Minutes" is nothing to do with volume of bytes. What the first quote alludes to is the way it is charged in the UK. You pay more for speed and also more for volume. Are you saying that domestic and business customers in the states pay the same whether they use 50MB or gobble 2TB in a month? Surely not.
Click to expand...
Yes. I pay the same amount every month, whether I use 100MB or 100TB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom