|
Post by lockejv on Jun 6, 2008 9:22:30 GMT -5
Here's a more objective explanation of why their video is ridiculous (I tend to get carried away): Digg commenters cried foul on iPower's scandalous and unsourced claims. If the telecommunications companies were making back room plans to gut the Internet, people wrote, that would certainly be an antitrust violation. Second, there's an entire sector of companies whose raison d'etre is to innovate online--if they got their access revoked, a big fat slice of the economy would go poof. Take a site like Google, which is built to help users navigate a limitless Web. But if the Web was just a few hundred (or a few thousand) sites--a search engine as powerful as Google would be pointless. So iPower's claim doesn't really add up. I spoke to Reese Leysen, one of iPower's members, and he swore that a high-level contact at one of the companies told him it was so. I'm tempted to believe Leysen since he's been a straight shooter before, but as is often the case with secrets, whatever secondhand truth he was handed probably got further muddled in translation. from here
|
|
Milara
Casual Member
Hawt yuri luvvin?
Posts: 25
|
Post by Milara on Jun 6, 2008 10:35:08 GMT -5
Sites taking WAY TOO LONG to load may as well be inaccessible. Even if they do load, sites that are slow to load will not get much traffic because people get sick of waiting. If they didn't, we'd all still be using dialup ;-) Perhaps they wouldn't slow sites down to such a degree that no one wanted to use them... but maybe they would? And what would stop them? If some site was outside of your payment plan, it'd be slow. Or if some other site pays off isps to make their competitors slow, they're slow. And as far as I know, ISPs are under no obligation to report which sites they are down-throttling. So if you go to visit a site and it's slow, you won't know if they're having network problems, if your isp is having problems, if your local network is having problems, if the bandwidth from that site is being limited, or if they just have crappy servers that can't handle any kind of traffic. Even the most patient of people likely wouldn't keep trying a slow site if it stays slow for longer than a day or two. They might try again in a few weeks but if the ISP is keeping the bandwidth to that site low, it's still be slow.
|
|
|
Post by Bridger - Retired Paladin on Jun 6, 2008 11:33:14 GMT -5
There is not going to be a tiered payment plan which gives you access to certain sites. That idea is so outright opposed by the people congressmen, etc, that it won't happen.
Do not put to much stock into some hippy's "inside source".
|
|
|
Post by lockejv on Jun 6, 2008 12:01:36 GMT -5
Sites taking WAY TOO LONG to load may as well be inaccessible. But they are 100% completely different things. Inaccessible means "impossible to get to". Limiting bandwidth means "you can still get to it but the available bandwidth is being reduced." Why can't you accept the accepted definitions of the terms you are using? Perhaps they wouldn't slow sites down to such a degree that no one wanted to use them... but maybe they would? You are describing some of the current concerns over net neutrality. But Athene and friends are talking about a new model for Internet access, which is much larger than net neutrality. It goes way way way way beyond net neutrality. And that's why their video is a joke, not even a blip on the radar. A google news search only brought up the blog entry I linked to. And the video is only being propagated by people who don't have an understanding of Internet infrastructure and the devastating economic impact of such a fundamental change to net access. It's completely ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by -=[Tork]=- on Jun 6, 2008 13:04:59 GMT -5
So what they are talking about in that video is like a completely different internet protocol?
|
|
rhavvyn
New Member
plg%%something...I think%%
Posts: 239
|
Post by rhavvyn on Jun 6, 2008 13:28:12 GMT -5
Not quite sure if this is applicable or not, but when I was working for Comcast, our Management was all about Customer First. However, what they neglected to inform customers when they signed up for internet or phone was the fact that if you exceeded X amount of bandwidth or X amount of calls per month, your services would and could be suspended as you "might" be running a company from your home and as such needed to sign up for Comcast's more expensive business accounts. This led to many calls from people who couldn't understand why they had been cut off. Now admittedly some people were, in fact, using the home services for work purposes, but a majority of folks were just hard core computer enthusiasts and/or hard core geeks. Then Comcast went so far as to start throttling bandwidth for BitTorrent and P2P applications. For quite a while they denied it to the techs in the call centers, but after a while we were able to confirm what was going on...and then it finally made the news, and that just led to more and more calls from irate customers. Funny thing is, most of those calls came from people who couldn't understand that in the call center, we have no control over company policy. There's no use in verbally abusing the people on the other end of the phone when they're not administration. Meh, sorry, mind was wandering there. Taking that into consideration, I've often wondered where it will stop. Where will Comcast and similar companies stop? At what point will it go too far?
|
|
|
Post by lockejv on Jun 6, 2008 15:41:06 GMT -5
So what they are talking about in that video is like a completely different internet protocol? No, they're saying the Internet will become like television - a tiered subscription model. They'll only give you access to certain sites, and if you want to go to more, you'll have to pay. They describe it and show a fake example in the video about a minute in. It would obliterate the economy and leave millions jobless. It's so ridiculous I can't even believe I'm still talking about it.
|
|
|
Post by -=[Tork]=- on Jun 6, 2008 16:03:18 GMT -5
so why wouldn't it eventually become like television with tiered subscriptions? How would it cost millions of jobs? did people say that when cable started broadcasting and the UHF and VHF channels were like they can't do that!?
|
|
|
Post by lockejv on Jun 6, 2008 19:54:30 GMT -5
so why wouldn't it eventually become like television with tiered subscriptions? How would it cost millions of jobs? did people say that when cable started broadcasting and the UHF and VHF channels were like they can't do that!? My job has revolved around the Internet for the past 8 years. I started as an Intranet Application Developer, and I ran my own web development company on the side for a few years, where I developed public sites. I managed websites in over 20 different countries. When I got bored programming, I moved over to the security and architecture side, where I build and maintain DNS servers, mail servers, and troubleshoot just about every type of Internet issue imaginable. I laughed at this video because it's contrary to everything I've learned the past decade, and would break what is arguably the most significant development of the human race. You asked excellent questions, and there are good answers to each of them. "Why won't it become like TV" will take a bit of time to answer directly - time I don't have at the moment. It's sort of answered by my answers to the other questions you asked, but I'd be happy to oblige if you'd like, just it'll have to wait until next week. Why would it cost millions of jobs? Say the ISPs all join together and make a model like this, as is suggested by the video: $29.95/mo - access to the top 20 most popular sites $39.95/mo - access to the top 100 $49.95/mo - access to the top 1000 ? - unlimited - did they even suggest this? A move to subscription would destroy Google's business model completely - it's a company that employs 20,000 people - there's the first chunk at your million. What would be the point of it if people can only get to the top 100 sites? Their search engine would be completely useless. How many businesses depend on google to draw business to their site? They would all go out of business too. And if your site doesn't happen to be in the top 1000, you're done as well. Local and regional online businesses would be done. Web hosting companies would be done. It would give the ISPs power to shut down any company at will. For example, if they removed newegg.com from the subscription list, newegg is done tomorrow. The US government, as fucking retarded as it is, would never allow this to happen because it would violate antitrust laws by giving a single company control over commerce. The net was built from the ground up with the idea that everyone has unlimited access. Any change to this destroys business models and commerce. I think the postal service is a good analogy - it would be like if UPS gained complete control over the postal and shipping industries, and only allowed certain companies to do business. They'd be in a position to cripple anyone at any time, and that's just not allowed under most governments. did people say that when cable started broadcasting and the UHF and VHF channels were like they can't do that!?It's not a good analogy because UHF/VHF can only broadcast so far, and are not interconnected. Moving from over the air to cable and satellite is also a huge improvement in the communications industry. It created jobs (replaced UHF/VHF jobs), and moved the industry forward, not backwards. There is no benefit to the Internet going to a subscription model, unless you work for an ISP, that suddenly would become the most powerful corporations in the world. Never gonna happen.
|
|
|
Post by -=[Tork]=- on Jun 6, 2008 20:14:42 GMT -5
Yeah I wouldn't mind waiting a week for some more answers, its something i'm geinuely interested in. Thats a good point about google, I know recently they build this huge office center in the area and brought in a lot of high-tech jobs.
and I love newegg lol thats where i got all the parts for my computer but if they went to that subscription model wouldn't it give equal opportunity to all business to pay to be on those top #### sites?
ok so i have some questions, So what they were proposing in the video is pretty much bypassing google? which in turn is going to cost a lot of jobs inter-related to google and advertising? so its not just affecting jobs of people directly related to the internet right.
and yeah I guess what i was trying to say with the thing about UHF/VHF is that the people involved in those industries probably didn't want it to change unless they were apart of it and eventually cable with pricing tiers became viable. Its businesses that wanted to do that to make a profit.
So do ISPs want this to happen? if they do want this to happen whats going to stop them from making it so if they acquire enough power to do so? I'm kind of tired and I'm sure a lot of this is jibberish so sorry if i'm making you scratch your head at some of my poorly constructed sentences. as I've written this out I started to think about it a bit more and you are probably right. It seems like there are too many big players doing their own things to stop the ISPs from doing this or who were they suggesting was going to take away net neutrality? I don't remember much of the video anymore lol
I'm not sure if this is true but i remember hearing when I was working at UPS that they shipped had like 90% of the market share of package shipping. Could be UPS propaganda but they led me to believe fed-ex was an ant compared to them
oh i also just thought of something. you said by them moving to a subscription model like that it'd destroy google. Wouldn't that just be kinda of like cable taking over from UHF/VHF and possibly be creating new industries. It is a free-market after all. heh
but the internet is so huge and expansive i don't think they could possibly control it all. My dad and I were talking about this a few months ago I think and it seems like its just gotten to big to "reign in" but if you prevent people from accessing it freely that'd be a start right?
p.s. how come I haven't seen ya in game? where ya been lol?
|
|
|
Post by McClebby on Jun 6, 2008 20:37:30 GMT -5
Inaccessible does not mean impossible to get to, it could be unable to access the site due to connection time up or the site has reach it bandwidth limit
The internet is not really expansive. A cheap broadband modem set is Singapore cost about SGD45 a ISP plan with unlimited connection cost about SGD45
|
|
|
Post by lockejv on Jun 6, 2008 21:03:13 GMT -5
p.s. how come I haven't seen ya in game? where ya been lol? Graduation / Girlfriend / NHL Playoffs / GTA IV (maybe played about 15 hours since release It's awesome, but I just haven't had the time.) I would love to raid, but there's no need for a Rogue and I can't be up past 1 AM EST. Spot would be wasted on me anyways as I have no interest in raiding more than two nights a week. I tried to get into the PVP as you can do it whenever, but I'm just not interested in spending 30 hours running BGs to get the rest of the gear I need. And as far as earning badges outside raids - lol.
|
|
Milara
Casual Member
Hawt yuri luvvin?
Posts: 25
|
Post by Milara on Jun 6, 2008 21:03:22 GMT -5
Apparently I'm just going to be called an idiot because I asked for more information about a possible problem, so I'm done. I never stated I believed this, I asked if there was any truth behind it. There was confusion expressed about what the issue was, I explained it. Then I was called an idiot. So whatever, I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by Grimgore on Jun 7, 2008 1:51:18 GMT -5
Unless someone deleted a comment, I didn't see anyone talk down about you at all Mil. I saw several 'that video is ridiculous' but that's totally different... not a slam on you.
|
|
|
Post by lockejv on Jun 7, 2008 7:53:37 GMT -5
Milara - no need to leave the discussion like that, you're no idiot
|
|