Milara
Casual Member
Hawt yuri luvvin?
Posts: 25
|
Post by Milara on Jun 2, 2008 9:06:40 GMT -5
I dunno, watch the clip. If you have any inside sources you could ask, maybe you should do so. At the very least maybe make a query to your ISP provider to see what their stance is. If they dodge the question, it won't tell us much... if they do make a statement, however prettied up, that'll be interesting though. Thoughts? www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns
|
|
|
Post by dragall on Jun 2, 2008 10:19:54 GMT -5
Some former punk introduced a bill a few days ago in Canada. www.punknews.org/article/29065 or www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/28/tech-netbill.html?ref=rss from a non-shit site. Unfortunately the NDP sucks, and in Canada we don't have our own Internet as much as we'd like to think we do. The Internet is a business, just like hospitals and insurance companies. Nobody cares and the primary responsibility is to your shareholders. It's capitalism. When has capitalism lost?
|
|
|
Post by -=[Tork]=- on Jun 2, 2008 10:35:53 GMT -5
I heard about this a long long long time ago. believe it or not through conspiracy theories like new world order and electronic banking conspiracy. If it does happen it will be a sad day for all the world. Its like the closing of the west but by a factor of 10000000! I honestly don't know what i would do with myself if i didn't have an outlet like the internet to explore and do what I want for myself. It makes sense though.
Its truly big business corporate capitalism in action. I compare this a lot to the american frontier of the 1880-90s. There was a vibrant economy and people could go out and make something for themselves until big business caught on and started to consolidate the wealth of the area. Now they are slowly figuring out the internet is a huge untapped resource and its obvious that they'll want to control it for monetary benefit. I also think most people wont give a shit about net neutrality going bye bye. Think about it.... the majority of internet users get on facebook/myspace maybe check out one or two other sites that are big and "easy, user friendly" to use. Those people have ruined the internet and stifled the evolution of the internet into something that will benefit all. Those kind of sites are fine but they added a huge amount of new internet users that just helps big business push their intrests onto the internet. Now they have a reason and those people gave it to them. I don't blame them it was invetiable. I'm just sad.
Its funny I started typing this while listening to the video clip and they kind of get into a lot of things i've been reading about for years. I usually read about it for entertainments sake but you know this probably will happen but I don't know heh
|
|
|
Post by lockejv on Jun 3, 2008 19:10:55 GMT -5
lmao, this is such bullshit. Total, complete 100% bullshit. You can't take anything Athene puts out seriously; this is a joke, just like all his other videos. If you want the real deal, check out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality - it's more about ISPs being allowed to limit bandwidth and protocols, which they already do anyways. It is an important issue, but it's totally different than what the Athene video suggests. All ISPs (who are competitors) joining together to limit Internet access for all users would completely shatter the global economy, and is completely unrealistic. Consider the implications on hundreds of thousands of businesses that would cease to exist, including companies like Google. Consider the trillions of business transactions that take place over the Internet that would no longer work. Consider Internet advertising - how would it function if you could only access a few sites? Consider all the investments in Internet and tech companies in the stock market that would suddenly become valueless. It would break all commerce and result in millions of lost jobs and total anarchy, because in developed countries, society is too wired to survive without it. Not gonna happen. Ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by -=[Tork]=- on Jun 3, 2008 19:14:57 GMT -5
Yeah thats why I've always heard about it in conspiracy theories and such. They would say that you'd have to agree to have your internt access monitored by the RIAA or whatever and then they'd give you broadband and limit the other people who refuse to obey their rules to dial up. Its usualy a way to bully people into using the internet the way they want, if you want speed. from the stuff i've read about it
I must of stopped listening to the video and just filled it in with things i've already read so I don't know lol. but i do think that them saying you can only use the internet for certain things and we'll give you speed for it makes sense because i'm sure the majority of internet users would gladly hand over their rights for faster speed and "better secruity" kinda like civil liberties in times of terrorist attacks. har har har
|
|
|
Post by lockejv on Jun 3, 2008 19:39:28 GMT -5
They would say that you'd have to agree to have your internt access monitored by the RIAA or whatever Japan has passed legislation to block popular torrent sites and traffic. But users will just find another way to trade. It's no different than when the US government shut down Napster. Bandwidth isn't going to be an issue eventually for ISPs anyways - read about the advancements with data transmissions through optical fiber. I don't know much about the topic, but if it was an impending problem, the flags would be up all over the place, and they're not. The deal with net neutrality is one company can pay the ISP to slow down traffic to their competitor's sites. For example, myspace could pay Comcast to slow down all Comcast users' facebook traffic to a crawl, or Comcast could force myspace and facebook into a bidding war. It's more about fair competition than consumer access. We'll still have access to the same sites; it'll just potentially be slower for some and faster for others based on what the ISP wants to do.
|
|
|
Post by -=[Tork]=- on Jun 3, 2008 19:56:48 GMT -5
yeah I know speed in s.Korea is super fast they have huge broadband penetration and I'd imagine/hope the US is catching up. i don't really see it being a problem either because you are right people will find a way around it and technology will compensate for the useage eventually.
I see so i did have a bit of misconception about what net neutrality is. Still fucked up someone can pay to make you slow lol
|
|
|
Post by NECRO! on Jun 4, 2008 21:11:10 GMT -5
this is going to hurt my porn addiction
|
|
|
Post by Bridger - Retired Paladin on Jun 5, 2008 1:15:35 GMT -5
This is one of the very few issues that has just confused the crap out of me.
However Locke's summary is correct, he is correct in saying that it is more about limiting bandwidth to certain sites. It also happens that issues such as this gain an assload of public support almost instantly.
I think this video was an attempt to simplify the situation so it was understandable, but in doing so made a lot of "simplifications" which aren't correct.
There will be riots in the streets before it gets too out of control.
|
|
Milara
Casual Member
Hawt yuri luvvin?
Posts: 25
|
Post by Milara on Jun 5, 2008 2:09:56 GMT -5
The "limiting the bandwidth of certain sites" is what the issue was they were talking about. It goes against net neutrality. Say some new video hosting site opened in competition with Youtube. Youtube could just pay net providers off and they'll limit the bandwidth on that site so no one will want to use it. If it takes 2 minutes to load the page, how long would it take to upload and view videos? And people wouldn't blame the ISPs, they'd blame the site for having "crappy servers". Or, ISPs could do like they were talking about and have a number of "popular" sites get normal/preferred bandwidth and all others get limited bandwidth. Again, if it takes a long time for those pages to load up, less people will use them. Sites that were innovative and became big business because of net neutrality like google and amazon wouldn't have a chance at starting up in a system where only preferred established sites got the open bandwidth. Net neutrality isn't about preventing big business from staying big business, it's about giving every other site equal opportunity. The biggest problem here is that most people don't understand what the problem is. And everything I've seen and heard since this has led me to believe it is indeed a problem. Oh and a lot of the asian countries enjoy such fast speeds because they got a fiber-optic system in place. Partly because they didn't have such a huge land mass to convert, and partly because some of them got the infrastructure in place relatively late, so fiber optics were available. The US, however, and I believe most places in Europe, still have mostly the old analog copper wires that they run the internet through. And no matter what improvements they make to the technology and converters and so forth, it's still going to be slow and crappy in comparison to fiber optics. They've replaced some areas with fiber optics, some of the urban areas of big cities, in the largest businesses, in the phone companies themselves, etc... but suburban areas still have copper wires. More rural areas barely even have that and are so far from the home offices or whatever that they can't even get dsl. They have to either use cable, if they're lucky, or more likely satellite. It would cost probably billions to replace all the old copper wires with fiber optics. It would vastly improve internet and businesses that rely on internet or teleconferencing etc, and would lay a solid foundation for the future, but the government and phone companies are responsible for upgrading to fiber optics and they don't want to spend the money on it. Whereas Japan, for example, has always made huge strides in being efficient. Building a subway system in a tectonically active area and figuring out how to do it where it would last... putting in a fiber optic infrastructure... etc... they spend the money for future progress. Whereas some countries... cough... would rather wait until they have no choice BUT to do it. Anyway...
|
|
|
Post by lockejv on Jun 5, 2008 15:19:44 GMT -5
The "limiting the bandwidth of certain sites" is what the issue was they were talking about. No, they're not talking about limiting bandwidth, the video you linked has a bunch of people talking about limiting access to sites. Completely different. "ISPs will change the way the internet is accessed completely...new subscription model - the Internet will be a subscription model, you have to pay extra to go to other Internet sites other than a select few..going on with all ISPs with strict NDA's" "Take down the internet in 2012", etc. Again, they're not discussing net neutrality, they're talking about changing the way the Internet is accessed, which would result in complete chaos.
|
|
Milara
Casual Member
Hawt yuri luvvin?
Posts: 25
|
Post by Milara on Jun 5, 2008 20:30:49 GMT -5
.... by limiting the bandwidth to sites outside of your subscription model. As I said you could still access the sites, they'd just be going so much slower that the vast majority of internet users would be less inclined to.
|
|
|
Post by Bridger - Retired Paladin on Jun 5, 2008 23:55:28 GMT -5
So there are a couple of issues.
Issue 1)
Tiered Service.
Paying more to access more sites. The video talks about tiered service. That is actually a Network Neutrality issue. However, there is a more pressing matter to Network Neutrality, which I will attempt to describe below.
Issue 2)
Limiting bandwidth without tiered service.
Certain ISP companies pay for the physical infrastructure, wires, fiber optics etc. Once the infrastructure is in place, other companies can use it without having to have paid to put the infrastructure in place. For example, in the last 10 years, Qwest has physically installed new phone lines so that DSL users can purchase Qwest's DSL product. The original companies which actually invested in the infrastructure wanted bandwidth limited to those companies that made no investment. Companies such as Qwest want to limit broadband usage of those companies which did not physically install new telephone lines.
That is the problem as far as I understand it. If someone who really knows what they are talking about has any additional input, please correct me if my understanding of the problem is not correct.
That is the bandwidth limitation argument which "Net Neutrality" generally refers to.
|
|
|
Post by McClebby on Jun 6, 2008 2:00:19 GMT -5
Your ISP provide u a gateway to the internet not the internet itself. Even with fiber optics cable from ISP company it is still possible for site manager to limit the brandwidth of the site.
edit:btw Tork ur pic is giving the creep...make me want to hate clown all over again >.>
|
|
|
Post by lockejv on Jun 6, 2008 9:01:12 GMT -5
.... by limiting the bandwidth to sites outside of your subscription model. As I said you could still access the sites, they'd just be going so much slower that the vast majority of internet users would be less inclined to. No "Limiting bandwidth" is completely different than making sites inaccessible.
|
|