Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: ISP's Charging For Access To Youtube, Xbox, Netflix, + More?! « previous next »
Page: 1 2

Rusty

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 11218
Offline
#15 : January 17, 2014, 08:03:20 AM

Don't worry, Google will figure it out.

                \'Every day above ground is a good day\'

lolTampa

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5327
Offline
#16 : January 17, 2014, 08:30:03 AM

NN is a lousy idea because it attempts to too broadly regulate something. The Open Internet order recognized a dozen non-neutral technologies (http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Downes02152011.pdf) that are already in the internet that help consumers. The problem is that the ruling would mean ONLY those 12 are available, if a company finds a 13th way to optimize the internet....sorry no dice.  In theory you don't WANT a neutral internet, I want video data optimized to flow faster than text data for example.

That's what you aren't understanding. Now they can throttle your internet and outright block sites as Netflix unless you pay extra. They can basically turn the internet into cable TV. Meaning you will be paying more than you already are and will be only visiting websites based on what internet package you choose. If Pewter Report isn't in that package, guess what? No more posting for you. You must not understand technology and what freedoms are being ripped from you. This comment shows how uneducated you are on the subject.

No you don't understand the technology and how the net isn't neutral right now and how, for example, if you watch Netflix or Youtube or Hulu that is good for you. Can you imagine an internet being limited in terms of technology by a law passed in 2013? That shows how uneducated you are on the subject.

Yes, in theory they could start charging you for access to "premium" content but the ISP's wont be the ones who do that - to use your cable model - the providers don't charge a crap ton for HBO. The distributors do. The cable company merely passes that charge onto you.The bigger worry, which this law would do nothing to stop, is that Facebook starts charging for access or you tube.

In places where you do have access to multiple providers you have an option to walk from one to the other and in places where you dont we have anti-trust laws that could solve any abuses. This law doesn't add anything to your options except to have the evolving technology of the internet limited by what the "best" minds of the government think are acceptable technologies.

Just so we are clear you are not referring to net neutrality with that statement, are you? Because if you are then I want you to know that you don't know what you're talking about. Net neutrality has been around as long as the internet. It was definitely not created in 2013. As the internet is right now there is total freedom to visit whatever website you want as much as you want. Using however much bandwidth you are paying for. Well guess what you are being short sighted and selfish in your thinking just like the government. Guess what Dal? There are a lot of cities that DON'T have choices in ISP's. Some only have one choice and that is all you get. Meaning hey we see you are using a lot of bandwidth from Netflix we are going to have to raise you bill by 10 dollars because of it. So without net neutrality they can double dip you for money. Just because of what website you use.

If you think that is a good thing for the internet you should just stop trying to sound like you are informed. What background do you have with internet and computers? Very curious to know. I'm going to guess not much. Have you even built your own computers? Do you have what you are getting when you choose your internet speeds? Very curious for you to answer those questions. Without using Google of course. I'm willing to bet you don't know. Sounds like you are a republican. I don't know how anyone can take Verizons and the government's side on this one. You know Verizon the same company that gives away personal info. You know the same government that has been spying on us in more ways than we thought.

Killing net neutrality gives the ISP's a chance to be bought out.  What I mean by this is someone from government that you seem to trust oh so much can pay an ISP to slow down access to certain websites that trash on them. Resulting in people not visiting those sites because they now take just too long to load. You are giving the ISP's reigns over what websites load fast and what ones load slow. So you are getting slower speeds meaning you are not getting the speeds you are promised. This slows things down, not speeds them up. It gives the ISP's a chance to essentially censor the internet. This is just what the government wanted so now they can reach into those deep pockets and basically censor stuff they don't want people to see. You can continue being a government sheep that doesn't bother me. Have fun with a killed internet and freedoms. Oh and have fun paying more and getting less. Go read about Google fiber and what made them start in the first place. Here I'll post a little for you. I think Google knows computers and internet better than our government and especially better than you.

"Time Magazine on September 14, 2012, said that rather than wanting to actually operate as an internet service provider, the company was just hoping to shame the major cable operators into improving their service so that Google searches could be done faster"




lolTampa

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5327
Offline
#17 : January 17, 2014, 08:32:03 AM

Don't worry, Google will figure it out.

Google is smart. They know if they roll out Google Fiber everywhere they will literally kill off every ISP. $70 dollars a month you can get 1GB/1GB that is INSANE! No other ISP touches that. Especially not at that price. You can get that and TV as well for $120 which isn't horrible considering what you are getting.


lolTampa

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5327
Offline
#18 : January 17, 2014, 08:43:45 AM

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/15/internet-without-net-neutrality-_n_4604385.html
: January 17, 2014, 08:46:09 AM CuteQBsOnly


lolTampa

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5327
Offline
#19 : January 17, 2014, 08:57:40 AM



dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21048
Online
#20 : January 17, 2014, 09:14:51 AM

Just so we are clear you are not referring to net neutrality with that statement, are you? Because if you are then I want you to know that you don't know what you're talking about. Net neutrality has been around as long as the internet. It was definitely not created in 2013. As the internet is right now there is total freedom to visit whatever website you want as much as you want. Using however much bandwidth you are paying for. Well guess what you are being short sighted and selfish in your thinking just like the government. Guess what Dal? There are a lot of cities that DON'T have choices in ISP's. Some only have one choice and that is all you get. Meaning hey we see you are using a lot of bandwidth from Netflix we are going to have to raise you bill by 10 dollars because of it. So without net neutrality they can double dip you for money. Just because of what website you use.

Let me try this slowly. The net is not neutral now. There are a host of technologies being used to accelerate certain content - load balancing, replication, the whole concept of network management is about not being "neutral". The problem here is that if a new method of network management is developed, it isn't allowed short of the government revising rules. All of these non-neutral things happened because the companies had an incentive (called your business) to deliver content faster. Your point about "only one" is why the government should be focused on opening the markets not opening the networks.

Frankly, what is wrong with a tiered pricing model? Say the ISP's do drive netflix and others to a "premium" plan? Why are people like my dad who reads emails and visits ESPN.com subsidizing people like me who consume egregious amounts of bandwidth watching Netflix basically nightly? The world is filled with differential pricing for different service levels. Cable companies do it. Restaurants do it (it is called an appetizer), airlines do it and so forth.

This isn't about "freedom" it is about regulation. This ruling is about allowing the FCC to manage content delivery. As I said, they are regulating the specific forms of network management you can do which borders on insane to have the government determining how technology works. Imagine what the web would look like if they had decided in 1998 the "right" way to manage a network. At an even higher level, the government is regulating content delivery. You really want the government to have the authority to manage how content is delivered? What the government gives, it can take away. Once the FCC establishes control over content delivery how long before the MPAA decides to lobby to remove bittorrent because the FCC has that power and 99% of what happens on bittorrent is illegal anyway. How about when BHO's minions are gone and the R's are back and decide pron is bad for you?

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.
If you think Manziel is the best QB in this draft I can safely assume you are an idiot and will treat you as such.

lolTampa

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5327
Offline
#21 : January 17, 2014, 09:17:44 AM

Just so we are clear you are not referring to net neutrality with that statement, are you? Because if you are then I want you to know that you don't know what you're talking about. Net neutrality has been around as long as the internet. It was definitely not created in 2013. As the internet is right now there is total freedom to visit whatever website you want as much as you want. Using however much bandwidth you are paying for. Well guess what you are being short sighted and selfish in your thinking just like the government. Guess what Dal? There are a lot of cities that DON'T have choices in ISP's. Some only have one choice and that is all you get. Meaning hey we see you are using a lot of bandwidth from Netflix we are going to have to raise you bill by 10 dollars because of it. So without net neutrality they can double dip you for money. Just because of what website you use.

Let me try this slowly. The net is not neutral now. There are a host of technologies being used to accelerate certain content - load balancing, replication, the whole concept of network management is about not being "neutral". The problem here is that if a new method of network management is developed, it isn't allowed short of the government revising rules. All of these non-neutral things happened because the companies had an incentive (called your business) to deliver content faster. Your point about "only one" is why the government should be focused on opening the markets not opening the networks.

Frankly, what is wrong with a tiered pricing model? Say the ISP's do drive netflix and others to a "premium" plan? Why are people like my dad who reads emails and visits ESPN.com subsidizing people like me who consume egregious amounts of bandwidth watching Netflix basically nightly? The world is filled with differential pricing for different service levels. Cable companies do it. Restaurants do it (it is called an appetizer), airlines do it and so forth.

This isn't about "freedom" it is about regulation. This ruling is about allowing the FCC to manage content delivery. As I said, they are regulating the specific forms of network management you can do which borders on insane to have the government determining how technology works. Imagine what the web would look like if they had decided in 1998 the "right" way to manage a network. At an even higher level, the government is regulating content delivery. You really want the government to have the authority to manage how content is delivered? What the government gives, it can take away. Once the FCC establishes control over content delivery how long before the MPAA decides to lobby to remove bittorrent because the FCC has that power and 99% of what happens on bittorrent is illegal anyway. How about when BHO's minions are gone and the R's are back and decide pron is bad for you?

You are so uninformed it is laughable. Seriously you sound like you have everything confused and twisted. I'll take Google and my  knowledge with computers and networks over yours. You partially quoted me which means I was right. You don't know, but you're trying hard to pretend you do. LMFAO you have everything backwards... RIGHT NOW and since the internet has been around it HAS BEEN NEUTRAL. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE KILLING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
: January 17, 2014, 09:22:30 AM CuteQBsOnly


lolTampa

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5327
Offline
#22 : January 17, 2014, 09:24:10 AM

Seriously watch the damn video and read the article so you understand. Jesus christ you have everything backwards and you're embarrassing yourself.


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21048
Online
#23 : January 17, 2014, 09:32:13 AM


You are so uninformed it is laughable. Seriously you sound like you have everything confused and twisted. I'll take Google and my  knowledge with computers and networks over yours. You partially quoted me which means I was right. You don't know, but you're trying hard to pretend you do. LMFAO you have everything backwards... RIGHT NOW and since the internet has been around it HAS BEEN NEUTRAL. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE KILLING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

Wow, the funny and sad thing is you think you know something - and I love the I'll side with Google stance as if they are uninterested parties. Your understanding of neutrality is shallow as all get out. Again, the ruling you want to defend lists specific NON NEUTRAL aspects of the internet. Your understanding of computers doesn't include network management  I provided the link, which you can't be bothered to read the actual law.

There is actually nothing in this ruling about net neutrality per se which is even worse. The courts did not uphold or strike down the "right" to a neutral internet. Again, you don't bother with with understand what was actually being challenged here The ruling is about the ability of the FCC to regulate transmission of the data. The "net neutrality" as you see it is nothing more than the current set of rules the FCC was proposing to force on providers  Assuming this power was granted there would be nothing to stop them from changing that stance to say that there is another set of rules because, well we have the power to regulate.


All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.
If you think Manziel is the best QB in this draft I can safely assume you are an idiot and will treat you as such.

lolTampa

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5327
Offline
#24 : January 17, 2014, 09:35:21 AM


You are so uninformed it is laughable. Seriously you sound like you have everything confused and twisted. I'll take Google and my  knowledge with computers and networks over yours. You partially quoted me which means I was right. You don't know, but you're trying hard to pretend you do. LMFAO you have everything backwards... RIGHT NOW and since the internet has been around it HAS BEEN NEUTRAL. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE KILLING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

Wow, the funny and sad thing is you think you know something - and I love the I'll side with Google stance as if they are uninterested parties. Your understanding of neutrality is shallow as all get out. Again, the ruling you want to defend lists specific NON NEUTRAL aspects of the internet. Your understanding of computers doesn't include network management  I provided the link, which you can't be bothered to read the actual law.

There is actually nothing in this ruling about net neutrality per se which is even worse. The courts did not uphold or strike down the "right" to a neutral internet. Again, you don't bother with with understand what was actually being challenged here The ruling is about the ability of the FCC to regulate transmission of the data. The "net neutrality" as you see it is nothing more than the current set of rules the FCC was proposing to force on providers  Assuming this power was granted there would be nothing to stop them from changing that stance to say that there is another set of rules because, well we have the power to regulate.

So you know more than everyone in the news and everyone on YouTube and everyone in Huffington Post? You should be a billionaire.

Net neutrality - (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.

I don't know what's so hard for you to understand.
: January 17, 2014, 09:38:58 AM CuteQBsOnly


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21048
Online
#25 : January 17, 2014, 09:43:32 AM

Well I'm sure I know more than everyone on the Huffpo.....dear god I'm sure I'd not use that as my source on anything related to science and tech.

The thing is what they are arguing for and what this ruling is about and does are two different things. You want an unregulated internet where you can go where you want and not have walls tossed up and limits. What the FCC is trying to do isn't about that. They have framed it that way but it is about their ability to regulate traffic and they have specifically determined how internet network management can work. Again, imagine if the FCC had tried to determine how cell phone data plans should have worked in 1995. Happy thoughts no doubt.

Again, as we sit and type right now YouTube gets "preferential" treatment on most ISP's because they will cache and replicate it because it is a high volume site. That is not neutral but it helps your experience.

I agree with you about the theory of net neutraility but the problem is the FCC rules don't advance that cause except in a very narrow and short-term focused fashion and tie up internet governance with a ton of government rules and regulations moving forward.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.
If you think Manziel is the best QB in this draft I can safely assume you are an idiot and will treat you as such.

lolTampa

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5327
Offline
#26 : January 17, 2014, 09:54:41 AM

Well I'm sure I know more than everyone on the Huffpo.....dear god I'm sure I'd not use that as my source on anything related to science and tech.

The thing is what they are arguing for and what this ruling is about and does are two different things. You want an unregulated internet where you can go where you want and not have walls tossed up and limits. What the FCC is trying to do isn't about that. They have framed it that way but it is about their ability to regulate traffic and they have specifically determined how internet network management can work. Again, imagine if the FCC had tried to determine how cell phone data plans should have worked in 1995. Happy thoughts no doubt.

Again, as we sit and type right now YouTube gets "preferential" treatment on most ISP's because they will cache and replicate it because it is a high volume site. That is not neutral but it helps your experience.

I agree with you about the theory of net neutraility but the problem is the FCC rules don't advance that cause except in a very narrow and short-term focused fashion and tie up internet governance with a ton of government rules and regulations moving forward.

 I gave plenty of big sources outside of them, but you choose to ignore it. Exactly, it's ONLY good for the big companies that have the money. You're on PewterReport do you think they have the kind of money to make sure you have the best experience possible? No, sites like this will suffer. If you're an up and coming website you'll be screwed thanks to the death of the internet being neutral. What you're not seeing is because ISP's can manipulate what speeds websites get they can essentially block websites they don't want you too see.

They can now intentionally throttle your speeds based on what websites you use. You brought up the fact you watch Netflix nightly. Guess what? Verizon is powering The Red Box online. You know what that means? That can throttle your Netflix speed so much that your best option is to use their service which is Red Box Online. Right now they can't do that because it's not allowed because of net neutrality. Without it they can now play favorites. You're being selfish. Because you'll say then switch providers.

Guess what? There are a lot of places that believe or not only have ONE choice. They will have no choice, but to pay the extra cost if they really want it. You bring up your dad checking E-mail and ESPN UHH DUH it's called choosing a smaller internet package. I pay for 50/25 and I want that for ALL sites that I visit. Not what Fios chooses to favor. Support something that not many people outside the government will support. But you won't find many like yourself.
: January 17, 2014, 09:58:45 AM CuteQBsOnly


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31368
Offline
#27 : January 17, 2014, 10:37:29 AM

Buddy Hobbs fail.


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31368
Offline
#28 : January 17, 2014, 11:57:08 AM

Buddy Hobbs fail.

http://s606.photobucket.com/user/Biggs3535/library/?sort=3&page=1

Now grow up.

What are you whining about?  Your screen name was BuddyHobbs, genius.


lolTampa

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5327
Offline
#29 : January 17, 2014, 12:23:31 PM

Buddy Hobbs fail.

http://s606.photobucket.com/user/Biggs3535/library/?sort=3&page=1

Now grow up.

What are you whining about?  Your screen name was BuddyHobbs, genius.

You're a true Ahole. Just let it go. Like I said grow up.

Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: ISP's Charging For Access To Youtube, Xbox, Netflix, + More?! « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools