Wave goodbye to Internet freedom

TFian said:
Actually that's false. You usually have one cable, one satellite based provider, one DSL, and 3g and 4g, along with dialup. You have plenty of choices.
Click to expand...

I live in rural Georgia, and your statement does not apply here in the least. We have one company that provides cable television, telephone communications, and internet service(both broadband and dial-up.) They refuse to let other companies use the existing infrastructure. Thus, no other company has decided to move in and erect their own infrastructure.

All these choices... :)
 
MaverickPLM said:
I live in rural Georgia, and your statement does not apply here in the least. We have one company that provides cable television, telephone communications, and internet service(both broadband and dial-up.) They refuse to let other companies use the existing infrastructure. Thus, no other company has decided to move in and erect their own infrastructure.

All these choices... :)
Click to expand...

Then move your ass to a big city.
 
TFian said:
Those aren't examples of censorship, but preventing their bandwidth from clogging up, which they have a right to.

Also it seems people conducting illegal activity "pirates" won't be able to claim settlement money. Don't see the problem with that, or how it's related to what I asked.
Click to expand...

I don't really know anyone who thinks that ISPs should not be able to charge more for users who use more bandwidth. If someone is downloading 20 gigabytes a day he probably should pay more than someone downloading 2 gigabytes a day.

The problem is charging more based on who the gigabytes are coming from, not how many of them there are. It doesn't really cost Verizon more to deliver the ones and zeros that comprise the Johnathan Coulter cover of "Baby Got Back" if they come from Zune or iTunes, but if Verizon cuts a deal with Apple, Zune users might end up being charged more for slower download speeds, and Zune might go out of business as sales decline. Apple then cuts a check for a few million to Verizon.

Now, the ISPs say that they have no intention of engaging in these sorts of underhanded dealings. They are merely opposed to any and all legal, physical, or regulatory frameworks that might possibly prevent them from doing this. This of course is silly, but it is the position of the ISPs.
 
Random said:
I don't really know anyone who thinks that ISPs should not be able to charge more for users who use more bandwidth. If someone is downloading 20 gigabytes a day he probably should pay more than someone downloading 2 gigabytes a day.
Click to expand...

Net neutrality activists sure do. They don't want bandwidth charged in packets.

Random said:
Zune users might end up being charged more for slower download speeds, and Zune might go out of business as sales decline. Apple then cuts a check for a few million to Verizon.
Click to expand...

Why should government prevent this?

Random said:
Now, the ISPs say that they have no intention of engaging in these sorts of underhanded dealings. They are merely opposed to any and all legal, physical, or regulatory frameworks that might possibly prevent them from doing this. This of course is silly, but it is the position of the ISPs.
Click to expand...

I'll believe it when I see it.
 
TFian said:
Net neutrality activists sure do. They don't want bandwidth charged in packets.
Click to expand...

No they don't. There's nothing in the new net neutrality rules that prohibits anyone from being charged by the byte. You don't know a single god-damned thing about this subject.
 
TFian said:
Yes, yes they do.

Fight against the government destroying the free market of the Internet.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Show me mainstream proponents of net neutrality that argue for doing away with pay-per-byte. Show me where the new net neutrality rules state that pay-per-byte is illegal.

Furthermore, the benefits of a free market cannot exist in monopolies or duopolies.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Prove it. Show me mainstream proponents of net neutrality that argue for doing away with pay-per-byte. Show me where the new net neutrality rules state that pay-per-byte is illegal.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean the compromised rules of the FCC, not the rules net neutrality activists wanted. I'm ok with those ones, since it lets ISPs move onto wireless unhindered by government regulation. Though those rules are likely to be ruled illegal anyway, hopefully.

Newtons Bit said:
Furthermore, the benefits of a free market cannot exist in monopolies or duopolies.
Click to expand...

Nor with government control.
 
TFian said:
Oh you mean the compromised rules of the FCC, not the rules net neutrality activists wanted. I'm ok with those ones, since it lets ISPs move onto wireless unhindered by government regulation. Though those rules are likely to be ruled illegal anyway, hopefully.
Click to expand...

So where's the links? Surely these people you're talking about have posted opinions on the internet, right? Or are you just full of :rule10?

I'm gonna go with the latter.



Nor with government control.
Click to expand...

So you admit that's its not a free market right now. Good. That's something.
 
Newtons Bit said:
So where's the links? Surely these people you're talking about have posted opinions on the internet, right? Or are you just full of :rule10?

I'm gonna go with the latter.
Click to expand...

Just go look up the socialists at "FreePress"(dot)net if you're that curious.

Newtons Bit said:
So you admit that's its not a free market right now. Good. That's something.
Click to expand...

Of course not, we have way too much government regulation in our marketplace for it to be a real free market.
 
MaverickPLM said:
I live in rural Georgia, and your statement does not apply here in the least. We have one company that provides cable television, telephone communications, and internet service(both broadband and dial-up.) They refuse to let other companies use the existing infrastructure. Thus, no other company has decided to move in and erect their own infrastructure.

All these choices... :)
Click to expand...

TFian said:
Then move your ass to a big city.
Click to expand...
I live 18 miles out of Fort Worth, 10 miles from Weatherford, Texas.
We have NO cable provider. We do have ATT. Don't use them.
 
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...

My ISP pinches your speed after you download/upload so much to keep things fair for all the hungry modems in the fast growing area. They are however laying down fiber just as fast as they can for us.

The conspiracy inclined should not be so worried about speed controls and multi-tier Internet. Should that happen, the 'documentary' makers can take their little cinemas off Youtube to some other filesharing/fileshowing solution. The powers that be can't tier everything. For that matter, there's Rapidshare, Fileshare, and God only knows how many other ways for a file to get from one person to another. Besides, a PDF or an animated gif is almost impossible to keep off the tubes. :p
 
Nosi said:
The conspiracy inclined should not be so worried about speed controls and multi-tier Internet. Should that happen, the 'documentary' makers can take their little cinemas off Youtube to some other filesharing/fileshowing solution. The powers that be can't tier everything. For that matter, there's Rapidshare, Fileshare, and God only knows how many other ways for a file to get from one person to another. Besides, a PDF or an animated gif is almost impossible to keep off the tubes. :p
Click to expand...

Comcast has already done it by extorting Netflix. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's already happened and well documented.
 
TFian said:
Yes, yes they do.
Click to expand...
No, they don't. Again, you don;t appear to have the slightest clue as to what your talking about.

TFian said:
Fight against the government destroying the free market of the Internet.
Click to expand...
Oh, the irony! It's actually the opponents of net neutrality that are trying to stifle the free market with vertically integrated telecoms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom