I guess that depends on what you consider premium services. If you are only talking about different levels of bandwidth, then yes I think they should be able to charge more for higher bandwidth (they already do), but if you consider the ability to go to any website you want and download any legal video or music file, premium services I see a problem with that.
The idea that I might go to Google video and a little window pops up and asks me to pay more to access that video I see as being wrong.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
This doesn`t affect any of us and it never will!!
Just alot of misguided and uninformed people who have no clue what this was really about!
I`ve said it before and I will say it again -- What do you expect out of a forum where the average age is possibly 14yrs old?
Critics complain that without net neutrality, small online businesses won't be able to afford the same service as huge sites like amazon and google. That's like the owners of your neighborhood thrift shop whining because they can't afford a storefront on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. Actually, it's worse, because the pricing for tiered service won't be nearly as disparate as that. Companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are fighting against tiered service, because they are the bandwidth hogs that will have to start paying their fair share for all the traffic they generate.
If congress allows tiered service, nobody except the largest bandwidth users will notice a difference. The internet backbone has tons of capacity and keeps growing. backbone routing plays a lesser role in overall packet throughput than your local internet connection and the performance of the web server. vital network traffic should be a higher priority than teenagers gossiping in an AOL chat room!
Tom Halfhill, Analyst for Microprocessor Report.
As has been stated on ther threads and forums - this bill will not affect us small fries at the bottom of the food chain.....
Yet others have also posted bits and pieces from articles that support 100% what I have just stated..
Anyways it didn`t pass thus we are debating what could have been...lol
Just alot of misguided and uninformed people who have no clue what this was really about!
I`ve said it before and I will say it again -- What do you expect out of a forum where the average age is possibly 14yrs old?
Critics complain that without net neutrality, small online businesses won't be able to afford the same service as huge sites like amazon and google. That's like the owners of your neighborhood thrift shop whining because they can't afford a storefront on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. Actually, it's worse, because the pricing for tiered service won't be nearly as disparate as that. Companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are fighting against tiered service, because they are the bandwidth hogs that will have to start paying their fair share for all the traffic they generate.
If congress allows tiered service, nobody except the largest bandwidth users will notice a difference. The internet backbone has tons of capacity and keeps growing. backbone routing plays a lesser role in overall packet throughput than your local internet connection and the performance of the web server. vital network traffic should be a higher priority than teenagers gossiping in an AOL chat room!
Tom Halfhill, Analyst for Microprocessor Report.
As has been stated on ther threads and forums - this bill will not affect us small fries at the bottom of the food chain.....
Yet others have also posted bits and pieces from articles that support 100% what I have just stated..
Anyways it didn`t pass thus we are debating what could have been...lol
Do you even know how peering works?
So Google pays the same amount for bandwidth as a small mom and pop store front? No Bandwidth is bought either by megabit, total monthly transfer or 95th percential.
The mom and pop will buy maybe a couple of megabits while google will buy tens / hundreds of gigabits. So google / yahoo / etc have already paid for their "usage" of the internet.
Honestly this is no more than local stores having to buy "protection" from local gangs.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
When are Republicans going to realize how much their party sucks?
And this will effect everyone. If Google has to pay your ISP to allow it to send data to you at a reasonable rate, they will pass that cost on to advertizers, who in turn will pass it on to you in the cost of goods and services. Ultimately it's the consumer who is going to pay for it. Do you really want Comcast deciding what content you get to access at what speed?
And this will effect everyone. If Google has to pay your ISP to allow it to send data to you at a reasonable rate, they will pass that cost on to advertizers, who in turn will pass it on to you in the cost of goods and services. Ultimately it's the consumer who is going to pay for it. Do you really want Comcast deciding what content you get to access at what speed?
Actually net congestion or busy traffic on the Internet Pipelins should be governed in some way. Here is an example. Some company does something on an internet and this causes traffic which slows down the Internet. They should have to pay a fee, a charge, or possibly a fine for impeding everyone else. Lets say American Idle causes a big slowdown on the Internet. Even though it may be for a narrow timespan they might cause the Internet to slow down due to their voting process or online sites. So they should have a responsibility for slowing down the Internet. The same should go for Spammers, or for a virus or ip attack. There should be a monetary fine for slowing down access or a denial of service attack. Like spammers, if they produce so many emails it bogs down a server then they should have to pay some service fees and penalties.
Why should they be responsilbe for something like that? People are simply using the connection they paid for. Its not similar at all to a DDoS attack, or spamming, at all.
Do you have any idea how the internet works? The guys in the middle are the companies that sell the connection to your local provider. Bigger companies will own large networks in the area, and they lease out access to smaller ISPs. The large companies establish peering links between each other, where they agree to connect the networks and share traffic. What is different, is now companies like AT&T want Google/Yahoo/etc to pay for traffic that crosses AT&T's network, even though Google/Yahoo/etc have already paid for their internet access. So double dipping in other words.
Sure, let's:
Put a premium on water - Peons get sewage tasting water, the rich get Evian quality.
Put a Premium on Electricity - Peons get a light bulb, Rich get Air Conditioning.
and on and on.
The sad thing is, the biggest reason it didn't pass is because practicaly everybody in the House has no idea how the internet works. Half of them probably don't even know how to use a computer.
Aww, I sent email to governor of WA state, she said she's for net neutraility(<3) but dam 
noooo MY INTERNEEETSSS
noooo MY INTERNEEETSSS I don't see why this is a big deal. The ISPs own the network, you are just using it. They should be able to do whatever they want with THEIR network.
Let's see you say that when you can't afford to do a search when you can't afford to pay the extra fees in addition to your ISP Internet access fee.
Oh that's right, your one of the Rich Republicans, money is no object.
Well now that I've read some more, net neutrality is definately a bad thing. You don't want government getting involved in this or mandating.
This is a good vote.
I believe this representative said it best (from the article)
""I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it...I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet." "
This is a good vote.
I believe this representative said it best (from the article)
""I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it...I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet." "
The government WOULDN'T DICTATE THE INTERNET!
They would dictate internet PROVIDERS! The BUSINESS of internet providers. NOT the world wide web.
A comparable situation would be for electricity companies to charge you for using a lightbulb, but also charge the lightbulb company for using their electricity. It's CRAZY!
Seriously, spidey, I can't believe you are that gullible.
They would dictate internet PROVIDERS! The BUSINESS of internet providers. NOT the world wide web.
A comparable situation would be for electricity companies to charge you for using a lightbulb, but also charge the lightbulb company for using their electricity. It's CRAZY!
Seriously, spidey, I can't believe you are that gullible.
Net neutrality didn't mandate the internet..it made it a fair playing field. It's stupid to get rid of it..you're just giving more control to the exact people who shouldn't have it.
Gullible? This is what I do for a living.
I don't want government anywhere near the providers mandating their operations. It would stiffle innovation. Did you even read the article? This has nothing to do with your analogy. Net Neutrality exists for the most part today and the cases/services where it doesn't are with a provider offering an enchanced service. Just the way capitalism is supposed to work.
Maybe you guys don't understand what it is?
The republicans are just giving more contol to the bacbone providers (ala At&t, sbc, etc) because the NSA now dictates what ma bell does.
In essence they are handing over the PIPE to the government.
In essence they are handing over the PIPE to the government.
Well that explains it.
You personally benefit directly from the destruction of the Internet and the United States.
Congrats you Anti-American on your sucess.
Right... so how would you feel if you had to make a road trip from LA to New York only to have to delay the trip for a week because the Denver's mayor decided to force non-city residents to take the longer rural route instead of their city's highways?
"The internet" is exactly like US's highway system, and its data packets are the automobiles that travel on it.
It's not like I'm borrowing it from them, I'm PAYING for my bandwidth and access. And Google is PAYING for their bandwidth and access. Now tell me why any of the ISPs involved in my talking with Google should be able to charge either of us again or degrade our service...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter