Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Defend Net Neutrality
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • …
  • 6
Defend Net Neutrality
Tweet Topic Started: May 5 2014, 07:59 AM (508 Views)
dreachon May 5 2014, 07:59 AM Post #1
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
[utube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw[/utube]
Edited by dreachon, May 5 2014, 08:00 AM.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars May 5 2014, 09:37 AM Post #2
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
I'm not worried about this due to all of the competition, e.g. cable, DSL, cell data, Clearwire (proprietary through the air), satellite, etc.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 5 2014, 09:39 AM Post #3
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Using their metaphors, who paid to put the "large pipes in the ground"? If they paid for them, then they can do what they like....if the taxpayers covered the bill, then it's a different story.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 5 2014, 09:57 AM Post #4
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
HoosierLars
May 5 2014, 09:37 AM
I'm not worried about this due to all of the competition, e.g. cable, DSL, cell data, Clearwire (proprietary through the air), satellite, etc.
Trust me, if cable companies can increase profits by charging websites money to receive preferential treatment, the rest will follow suit.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars May 5 2014, 10:42 AM Post #5
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
May 5 2014, 09:57 AM
HoosierLars
May 5 2014, 09:37 AM
I'm not worried about this due to all of the competition, e.g. cable, DSL, cell data, Clearwire (proprietary through the air), satellite, etc.
Trust me, if cable companies can increase profits by charging websites money to receive preferential treatment, the rest will follow suit.
And if corn farmers can increase prices by giving some food companies preferential treatment, they will do it to. The point is that if we have enough competition, the correct prices will naturally be found. Hell, we only have two competitors making x86 chips, and that has given us amazing cpu performance at incredibly low prices.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 5 2014, 11:08 AM Post #6
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
May 5 2014, 10:42 AM
dreachon
May 5 2014, 09:57 AM
HoosierLars
May 5 2014, 09:37 AM
I'm not worried about this due to all of the competition, e.g. cable, DSL, cell data, Clearwire (proprietary through the air), satellite, etc.
Trust me, if cable companies can increase profits by charging websites money to receive preferential treatment, the rest will follow suit.
And if corn farmers can increase prices by giving some food companies preferential treatment, they will do it to. The point is that if we have enough competition, the correct prices will naturally be found. Hell, we only have two competitors making x86 chips, and that has given us amazing cpu performance at incredibly low prices.
Posted Image
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 5 2014, 11:23 AM Post #7
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
May 5 2014, 09:39 AM
Using their metaphors, who paid to put the "large pipes in the ground"? If they paid for them, then they can do what they like....if the taxpayers covered the bill, then it's a different story.
So let's say you pay $60/month to access the internet at 10mb/s download speed. Netflix pays an extra fee and when you access their website your speed actually goes up to 20mb/sec. When you go to the website for the local Ft. Wayne clothing store, your internet service provider actually decreases your speed. So you're not getting 10mb/s but let's say 2mb/s. And it's slow enough that the website times out when you try and complete your online purchase.

If companies want to charge more for access to the internet, by all means they can do that. But giving them control over which websites you are able to access is incredibly dangerous and unfair, IMO.

The reason this is an issue is that it's already happening. Comcast intentionally slowed the connection speed for it's users to Netflix. They demanded Netflix give them extra money in order for customers to be able to use Netflix properly. Netflix fought them intensely, but really had no other choice than to make the deal. These extra costs to Netflix will no doubt be passed on to consumers. Here is a graph showing what happened to Netflix. You'll notice Verizon was doing the same thing and Netflix just had to sign a deal with them as well. How is this fair to Netflix? THEY need to pay an extra fee but no one else does? How is this fair to customers? Customers pay to access the internet but can't stream their Netflix because the internet their paying for is being intentionally slowed by their provider JUST to that website? Totally ridiculous.

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 5 2014, 11:33 AM Post #8
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
May 5 2014, 11:23 AM
Mr Gray
May 5 2014, 09:39 AM
Using their metaphors, who paid to put the "large pipes in the ground"? If they paid for them, then they can do what they like....if the taxpayers covered the bill, then it's a different story.
So let's say you pay $60/month to access the internet at 10mb/s download speed. Netflix pays an extra fee and when you access their website your speed actually goes up to 20mb/sec. When you go to the website for the local Ft. Wayne clothing store, your internet service provider actually decreases your speed. So you're not getting 10mb/s but let's say 2mb/s. And it's slow enough that the website times out when you try and complete your online purchase.

If companies want to charge more for access to the internet, by all means they can do that. But giving them control over which websites you are able to access is incredibly dangerous and unfair, IMO.

The reason this is an issue is that it's already happening. Comcast intentionally slowed the connection speed for it's users to Netflix. They demanded Netflix give them extra money in order for customers to be able to use Netflix properly. Netflix fought them intensely, but really had no other choice than to make the deal. These extra costs to Netflix will no doubt be passed on to consumers. Here is a graph showing what happened to Netflix. You'll notice Verizon was doing the same thing and Netflix just had to sign a deal with them as well. How is this fair to Netflix? THEY need to pay an extra fee but no one else does? How is this fair to customers? Customers pay to access the internet but can't stream their Netflix because the internet their paying for is being intentionally slowed by their provider JUST to that website? Totally ridiculous.

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/
dreach, I'm not saying I like it....but just because I don't like something doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to do it. If enough of us don't like it, we can form our own ISP providing fairness to all sites, and put them out of business. In the case of Netflix, they have enough cash on hand to nearly do just that by themselves. As long as we are talking about companies who used their money (not government funded) to put the infrastructure in place, they can do with it as they please....but ultimately they will make the decision that the market wants or be put out of business.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars May 5 2014, 02:02 PM Post #9
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Why should Netflix or any other company have the right to fill the pipe, not letting other internet users have enough bandwidth? In the example of cable, the pipe has a finite size, and many people share it. I don't think there's an easy answer here, and admit I'm no expert on the subject.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 5 2014, 02:20 PM Post #10
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
May 5 2014, 02:02 PM
Why should Netflix or any other company have the right to fill the pipe, not letting other internet users have enough bandwidth? In the example of cable, the pipe has a finite size, and many people share it. I don't think there's an easy answer here, and admit I'm no expert on the subject.
I live in the country and have Dish Network satellite internet, which is not unlimited. It kind of sucks for me, but it is probably a better model. I tend to limit my Netflix use because of it.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 6 2014, 08:30 AM Post #11
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
May 5 2014, 02:20 PM
HoosierLars
May 5 2014, 02:02 PM
Why should Netflix or any other company have the right to fill the pipe, not letting other internet users have enough bandwidth? In the example of cable, the pipe has a finite size, and many people share it. I don't think there's an easy answer here, and admit I'm no expert on the subject.
I live in the country and have Dish Network satellite internet, which is not unlimited. It kind of sucks for me, but it is probably a better model. I tend to limit my Netflix use because of it.
Then charge customers for more bandwith use. If I want to stream movies and upload documentaries and download games and all that shit then I should pay for it. But limiting which websites I can actually use based on how much the ISP can siphon out of each site is NOT the way to go, IMO. Talk about killing innovation...
Edited by dreachon, May 6 2014, 08:30 AM.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 6 2014, 09:13 AM Post #12
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
May 6 2014, 08:30 AM
Mr Gray
May 5 2014, 02:20 PM
HoosierLars
May 5 2014, 02:02 PM
Why should Netflix or any other company have the right to fill the pipe, not letting other internet users have enough bandwidth? In the example of cable, the pipe has a finite size, and many people share it. I don't think there's an easy answer here, and admit I'm no expert on the subject.
I live in the country and have Dish Network satellite internet, which is not unlimited. It kind of sucks for me, but it is probably a better model. I tend to limit my Netflix use because of it.
Then charge customers for more bandwith use. If I want to stream movies and upload documentaries and download games and all that shit then I should pay for it. But limiting which websites I can actually use based on how much the ISP can siphon out of each site is NOT the way to go, IMO. Talk about killing innovation...
I agree it's stupid....but I believe you are an advocate of making it illegal. Right?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 6 2014, 09:29 AM Post #13
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
May 6 2014, 09:13 AM
dreachon
May 6 2014, 08:30 AM
Mr Gray
May 5 2014, 02:20 PM
HoosierLars
May 5 2014, 02:02 PM
Why should Netflix or any other company have the right to fill the pipe, not letting other internet users have enough bandwidth? In the example of cable, the pipe has a finite size, and many people share it. I don't think there's an easy answer here, and admit I'm no expert on the subject.
I live in the country and have Dish Network satellite internet, which is not unlimited. It kind of sucks for me, but it is probably a better model. I tend to limit my Netflix use because of it.
Then charge customers for more bandwith use. If I want to stream movies and upload documentaries and download games and all that shit then I should pay for it. But limiting which websites I can actually use based on how much the ISP can siphon out of each site is NOT the way to go, IMO. Talk about killing innovation...
I agree it's stupid....but I believe you are an advocate of making it illegal. Right?
The idea is NOT to pass laws making it illegal. It is to reclassify ISPs as common carriers. An example of this is telphone service. Whether I call Home Depot or Lowes, my call goes through just fine. Lowes can't pay an extra fee to make sure my call to Home Depot sounds like shit and gets dropped. So reclassifying ISPs in this manner would prevent them from doing the same with certain websites. I don't know whether that counts as "making it illegal". No new laws would be added to the books, if thats what you meant.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 6 2014, 11:27 AM Post #14
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
May 6 2014, 09:29 AM
Mr Gray
May 6 2014, 09:13 AM
dreachon
May 6 2014, 08:30 AM
Mr Gray
May 5 2014, 02:20 PM
HoosierLars
May 5 2014, 02:02 PM
Why should Netflix or any other company have the right to fill the pipe, not letting other internet users have enough bandwidth? In the example of cable, the pipe has a finite size, and many people share it. I don't think there's an easy answer here, and admit I'm no expert on the subject.
I live in the country and have Dish Network satellite internet, which is not unlimited. It kind of sucks for me, but it is probably a better model. I tend to limit my Netflix use because of it.
Then charge customers for more bandwith use. If I want to stream movies and upload documentaries and download games and all that shit then I should pay for it. But limiting which websites I can actually use based on how much the ISP can siphon out of each site is NOT the way to go, IMO. Talk about killing innovation...
I agree it's stupid....but I believe you are an advocate of making it illegal. Right?
The idea is NOT to pass laws making it illegal. It is to reclassify ISPs as common carriers. An example of this is telphone service. Whether I call Home Depot or Lowes, my call goes through just fine. Lowes can't pay an extra fee to make sure my call to Home Depot sounds like shit and gets dropped. So reclassifying ISPs in this manner would prevent them from doing the same with certain websites. I don't know whether that counts as "making it illegal". No new laws would be added to the books, if thats what you meant.
yes, it qualifies as making it illegal....reclassifying something so that the act you are referencing is then illegal is just that. Your comparison to the phone companies goes back to my original question....who paid to put those pipes in? The taxpayers footed the phone line bills, thus the government control.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 6 2014, 11:50 AM Post #15
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
May 6 2014, 11:27 AM
dreachon
May 6 2014, 09:29 AM
Mr Gray
May 6 2014, 09:13 AM
dreachon
May 6 2014, 08:30 AM
Mr Gray
May 5 2014, 02:20 PM
HoosierLars
May 5 2014, 02:02 PM
Why should Netflix or any other company have the right to fill the pipe, not letting other internet users have enough bandwidth? In the example of cable, the pipe has a finite size, and many people share it. I don't think there's an easy answer here, and admit I'm no expert on the subject.
I live in the country and have Dish Network satellite internet, which is not unlimited. It kind of sucks for me, but it is probably a better model. I tend to limit my Netflix use because of it.
Then charge customers for more bandwith use. If I want to stream movies and upload documentaries and download games and all that shit then I should pay for it. But limiting which websites I can actually use based on how much the ISP can siphon out of each site is NOT the way to go, IMO. Talk about killing innovation...
I agree it's stupid....but I believe you are an advocate of making it illegal. Right?
The idea is NOT to pass laws making it illegal. It is to reclassify ISPs as common carriers. An example of this is telphone service. Whether I call Home Depot or Lowes, my call goes through just fine. Lowes can't pay an extra fee to make sure my call to Home Depot sounds like shit and gets dropped. So reclassifying ISPs in this manner would prevent them from doing the same with certain websites. I don't know whether that counts as "making it illegal". No new laws would be added to the books, if thats what you meant.
yes, it qualifies as making it illegal....reclassifying something so that the act you are referencing is then illegal is just that. Your comparison to the phone companies goes back to my original question....who paid to put those pipes in? The taxpayers footed the phone line bills, thus the government control.
Hmmm. This seems like a hollow argument.

1) Are we sure all the infrastracture was created by the ISPs? At least initially it was all created by government. I'm sure nowadays most of the lines run through existing phone line networking because creating all new pathways would be incredibly redundant. So I'm not sure it's safe to assume the infrastructure was all paid for by the ISPs.

2) Internet companies run their lines through public land. They don't have to buy and own all the land that they use. If they're going to claim that the lines are theirs and they can do what they want, then maybe they should be charged for using public land to run those lines.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • …
  • 6

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:53 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy