Republicans senators against net neutrality

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: cubby1223


Oh yea, no reason at all why an ISP would like to have a little bit of control, they just want to screw Modelworks out of as much of his paycheck as they can legally get away with :roll:

I have no sympathy for an industry that stole billions from taxpayers.
The problem with giving the telco an inch is they will not take a mile, they will take the whole damn road, interstate, bridge and every car on it.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The telco are scared to death of neutrality. The reason is because for years they have charged people for landlines and phone services. Made 5000% profits off features like call waiting. Duped the taxpayers out of billions and now they have a problem. Land line use is dropping so fast that they can't record the figures. Cell phones are the main cause but so is voip.

Cable has a similar problem. People are starting to watch more entertainment online and dropping paid programming.

And on the other side of the issue now with net neutrality your voip and internet tv services are struggling to come through steadily because all your neighbors have bittorrent running transferring terabytes of free porn, while all also simultaneously glued to a youtube video of a frat boy hitting himself with a baseball bat. Your voip call is being broken up because of that.

Oh yea, no reason at all why an ISP would like to have a little bit of control, they just want to screw Modelworks out of as much of his paycheck as they can legally get away with :roll:

Yes, so in the amazing free world of utter Telcom control people are suddenly going to start advancing and lose all interest in free porn and shoots to the nuts.

Let's be honest, things will stay exactly the same, we will just have less access and greater costs to be allowed to view "premium" content.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: bamacre
What if an ISP wants to offer a low-end connection for say, $10 a month, that provides access only to certain sites? Would they be allowed to do that under the Net Neutrality law?

Flip that question the other way around and see what YOUR answer is.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: JS80
I'm against net neutrality and I'm not on the telecom dole.

Ok, I'll bite. Why would you be against a well thought out and implemented Net Neutrality law or FCC ruling?

Just to piss off the Torrent leeches that I indirectly subsidize.

So you are telling me you have never used bittorrent for anything?

I do understand where the anger is coming from though, I get annoyed when my roommate starts up torrents.

Back in college I admit I downloaded movies/music through file sharing programs. But I never did a torrent.

When was college? 1990? Old man get off our internets you are clogging our ports with your slow old timey ways.

Torrents are file sharing just more advanced. I do respect that you actually admit your own former illegal activity. Most just like to pretend and continue to be hypocrites.

Torrents do serve a great purpose. They are quick, easy, safe ways to access things at "Our" speed. I personally use them as a means to access media, I would have had no other way of accessing. For instance, I have been looking for Xmen the animated series (The 90's cartoon) for about 5-6 years now. Disney, who owns the rights, refuses to release the whole series and instead chooses to lock away a part of my childhood. I would buy the series in a second if I had the opportunity, much like I did with Batman: The animated series (again, the 90's version) but it is out of my hands.

Am I missing something here?

Hallucination?

 

[Elias824]

If im not mistaken if you have voip, at least some of your connection is reserved for calls, not like it takes a whole lot to much some voice through. The FCC didnt like comcast throttling torrents because well they thought it forced innovation on them. More people need more bandwidth, and they need to find some other way to get it to them. QoS isnt really much of an answer, in the end you will always just need a bigger connection.

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The telco are scared to death of neutrality. The reason is because for years they have charged people for landlines and phone services. Made 5000% profits off features like call waiting. Duped the taxpayers out of billions and now they have a problem. Land line use is dropping so fast that they can't record the figures. Cell phones are the main cause but so is voip.

Cable has a similar problem. People are starting to watch more entertainment online and dropping paid programming.

And on the other side of the issue now with net neutrality your voip and internet tv services are struggling to come through steadily because all your neighbors have bittorrent running transferring terabytes of free porn, while all also simultaneously glued to a youtube video of a frat boy hitting himself with a baseball bat. Your voip call is being broken up because of that.

Oh yea, no reason at all why an ISP would like to have a little bit of control, they just want to screw Modelworks out of as much of his paycheck as they can legally get away with :roll:

I dont think you really have any idea how it works, your isp just dosent hand over all of their bandwidth to you. You get so much that they allot you and you should be free to do with it as you please. If your neighibors are breaking thier connections then maybe they are offering more then they should.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smashp


"Fat Dumb Pipes"

I have one word for you

Cloud

Now run along

What the hell are you talking about? In networking terms a cloud is a collection of pipes or a collection of autonomous systems which you do not have administrative control over. What exactly do you mean?

You just proved my point exactly. You Dont have a place in this Argument, because you dont even understand the argument. Technology has left you behind. Resource and application virtulization, SaaS, and cloud computing are removing any chance that you troglodytes will ever gain control over the Median we generally refer to as the Interwebs

You are just another Corporate Whore or a self hating Basement Dweller that cant stop yourself from Playing World of Warcraft and Downloading Porn.

What does application virtualization have to do with saturating a pipe? We have had those problems up the ass here at work all sorts of virtualizing going around and we saturated our network here at work till it was unuseable. IT who is to lazy to load balance etc decided just to throw a faster switch at the problem. Guess what people are doing now? Trying to push more data through.

Sounds Like you work with a bunch of retards, you should fit right in

I didn't say I agreed with the guy, I was just refuting your claim of that shit doesn't happen. It does. You act like "application virtualization" is going to fit pipe constraints and it won't. It won't do shit but ADD to the problem. In fact things like that should get priority over someone downloading music etc in the packet stream. I don't agree with him that not voting in Net Neutrality laws will prevent that from happening and it could still happen if they are voted into law. It's all about load balancing and placing high priority packets first. IE Voice and Video communications.

 

[herkulease]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: JS80
I'm against net neutrality and I'm not on the telecom dole.

Ok, I'll bite. Why would you be against a well thought out and implemented Net Neutrality law or FCC ruling?

Just to piss off the Torrent leeches that I indirectly subsidize.

So you are telling me you have never used bittorrent for anything?

I do understand where the anger is coming from though, I get annoyed when my roommate starts up torrents.

Back in college I admit I downloaded movies/music through file sharing programs. But I never did a torrent.

When was college? 1990? Old man get off our internets you are clogging our ports with your slow old timey ways.

Torrents are file sharing just more advanced. I do respect that you actually admit your own former illegal activity. Most just like to pretend and continue to be hypocrites.

Torrents do serve a great purpose. They are quick, easy, safe ways to access things at "Our" speed. I personally use them as a means to access media, I would have had no other way of accessing. For instance, I have been looking for Xmen the animated series (The 90's cartoon) for about 5-6 years now. Disney, who owns the rights, refuses to release the whole series and instead chooses to lock away a part of my childhood. I would buy the series in a second if I had the opportunity, much like I did with Batman: The animated series (again, the 90's version) but it is out of my hands.

Am I missing something here?

Hallucination?

technically you are. You linked to what is obviously a bootleg and I'm very sure the source is the same as the torrents. some vhs with maybe one or two episodes taken from the dvd rips of some of the single dvd releases.

Luckily after all the petitions and demands they slowly putting the X-men series out on dvd. The stupid part though is they didn't call it X-men Animated Series like it was known. they decided to call it X-men: Marvel Comic Book Collection.

Link

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: bamacre
What if an ISP wants to offer a low-end connection for say, $10 a month, that provides access only to certain sites? Would they be allowed to do that under the Net Neutrality law?

Flip that question the other way around and see what YOUR answer is.

Flip it in what way?

You mean like an ISP offers a basic connection, for $25, with access to certain sites, and a premium connection for $50/mo for access to all sites?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: smashp


"Fat Dumb Pipes"

I have one word for you

Cloud

Now run along

What the hell are you talking about? In networking terms a cloud is a collection of pipes or a collection of autonomous systems which you do not have administrative control over. What exactly do you mean?

You just proved my point exactly. You Dont have a place in this Argument, because you dont even understand the argument. Technology has left you behind. Resource and application virtulization, SaaS, and cloud computing are removing any chance that you troglodytes will ever gain control over the Median we generally refer to as the Interwebs

You are just another Corporate Whore or a self hating Basement Dweller that cant stop yourself from Playing World of Warcraft and Downloading Porn.

I dont know what any of those have to do with dumb vs intelliegent pipes.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I understand what spidey is saying and yes there does need to be some form of QoS but the problem is if you give them the ability to use QoS they will use it to promote their own services while slowing down others. Keeping them honest about how they use the system would be a nightmare . How many think time warner cable would put a connection going to netflix ahead of their own video streaming service ?

That is what the FCC is for is it not? I also worry that my cable company will artifically throttle my Netflix download as it competes with their on demand. But we as consumers do have a govt regulating body that can put a stop to that should it happen. And the FCC has stepped in the past. The problem is the NN crowd doesnt even want it to get to that point. In the process force ISPs to plant more capacity and pass along those costs to us, the consumers.

I just cant beleive so many people dont understand the point of QoS for certain services. It will provide a better experience for everybody minus a few leeches who use more than their fair share of the network.

When you have just a few % of the userbase consuming 50-80% of the network. It makes it damn near impossible to build capacity fast enough to provide for the other 95% of the users. If ISP could shape the traffic, those leeches detrimental affect on the network would be reduced.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: bamacre
What if an ISP wants to offer a low-end connection for say, $10 a month, that provides access only to certain sites? Would they be allowed to do that under the Net Neutrality law?

Flip that question the other way around and see what YOUR answer is.

Flip it in what way?

You mean like an ISP offers a basic connection, for $25, with access to certain sites, and a premium connection for $50/mo for access to all sites?

Exactly. And not just two tiers. $10 if you want full-speed support for your usenet provider. $10 if you want full-speed access to the top sports sites. $10 if you want full-speed access to video sites. $10 for "secondary" sites. And so on.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: shira

Exactly. And not just two tiers. $10 if you want full-speed support for your usenet provider. $10 if you want full-speed access to the top sports sites. $10 if you want full-speed access to video sites. $10 for "secondary" sites. And so on.

iirc, what you're describing has already been slapped down by the FCC the couple of times anyone has tried it. so why do we need a new law?


there is no net neutrality law in place right now and the internets does not appear to be broken or off limits

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: JS80
I'm against net neutrality and I'm not on the telecom dole.

Ok, I'll bite. Why would you be against a well thought out and implemented Net Neutrality law or FCC ruling?

Just to piss off the Torrent leeches that I indirectly subsidize.

So you are telling me you have never used bittorrent for anything?

I do understand where the anger is coming from though, I get annoyed when my roommate starts up torrents.

Back in college I admit I downloaded movies/music through file sharing programs. But I never did a torrent.

When was college? 1990? Old man get off our internets you are clogging our ports with your slow old timey ways.

Torrents are file sharing just more advanced. I do respect that you actually admit your own former illegal activity. Most just like to pretend and continue to be hypocrites.

Torrents do serve a great purpose. They are quick, easy, safe ways to access things at "Our" speed. I personally use them as a means to access media, I would have had no other way of accessing. For instance, I have been looking for Xmen the animated series (The 90's cartoon) for about 5-6 years now. Disney, who owns the rights, refuses to release the whole series and instead chooses to lock away a part of my childhood. I would buy the series in a second if I had the opportunity, much like I did with Batman: The animated series (again, the 90's version) but it is out of my hands.

Am I missing something here?

Hallucination?

Thanks for the link but I have looked into "collections" like this and they are basically bootleg DVD's. I have read horrid reviews and to be honest, it is no more legit than actually downloading the content. Just like the stuff they sell on Canal Street in NYC. Look at Amazon, or Deep Discount or any reputably buyer and you will not be able to buy it. And seriously, why would I pay money for poor quality stolen merchandise?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
I don't see how anyone can be stupid enough to not support net neutrality.

Welcome to the republican party

 

[SirStev0]

edit:

Originally posted by: herkulease
technically you are. You linked to what is obviously a bootleg and I'm very sure the source is the same as the torrents. some vhs with maybe one or two episodes taken from the dvd rips of some of the single dvd releases.

Luckily after all the petitions and demands they slowly putting the X-men series out on dvd. The stupid part though is they didn't call it X-men Animated Series like it was known. they decided to call it X-men: Marvel Comic Book Collection.

Link

Thank you thank you thank you. I had no idea that Disney actually got a clue. I knew for a long time they had a bunch of 3-5 episode DVD's out but nothing with the whole collection. They seriously dropped the ball with this thing.

 

[Phokus]

Why even bother arguing with spidey. The conservatives on this board love spidey because he says what they want to hear, and ignore that fact that he's wrong 99% of the time.

Do you people not remember how spidey argued that TWC was losing money and just HAD to throttle their bandwidth because they were losing money and couldn't afford to expand bandwidth otherwise? Even though their financial statements showed that costs DECREASED and their revenues and subscriber base INCREASED?

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/time-warner-cab/

For 2008, the most recent period available, Time Warner Cable reported that its high-speed data costs actually declined by 12 percent to $146 million. Meanwhile subscribers increased by more than 10 percent to 8.4 million, and high-speed data revenues climbed to more than $4 billion.

Spidey is ignorant as all hell. Does this sound like a company that needs to either throttle their bandwidth or kill net neutrality?

Also, i don't trust the FCC to enforce net neutrality without a very explicit and strong law in place. Even if they do strike down attempts to block or slow down access to other sites, this country is stupid enough that they might actually elect another Republican President/Congress down the road and the FCC won't do a thing. If we had a law in hand, then they would actually have to vote to overturn that law and the public would burn them to the stake (just like they did to TWC) for fucking with their internet.

 

[Genx87]

Phokus is the only retort you have to somebody who has more knowledge in this field than anybody on this msgboard a single thread where he was wrong? Sweet jesus if being wrong means we shouldnt listen to somebody this entire msgboard should be shut down yesterday.

And who the hell do you think is going to enforce any NN law if it is enacted? The same FCC you apparently dont trust. And who the hell was president when the FCC did smack down comcast?

Dislodge your mouth from the Democrats asshole for 10 seconds and breath. They can use toilet paper like the rest of us.

You apparently have all day to spend on the internet. Why dont you go learn about the stuff Spidey talks about instead of using your braindead comeback about TWC.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Oh yea, no reason at all why an ISP would like to have a little bit of control, they just want to screw Modelworks out of as much of his paycheck as they can legally get away with :roll:

I have no sympathy for an industry that stole billions from taxpayers.
The problem with giving the telco an inch is they will not take a mile, they will take the whole damn road, interstate, bridge and every car on it.

Everything you write I can replace "telco" with "filesharers". If we treat this situation as we are in this thread, that the only possible outcomes are the extremes, where consumers lose either way.

You have to have faith in something, and if given the choice, I have more faith in ISPs behaving honestly than I do in filesharers behaving honestly. Of course it's all a relative scale.

My solution is they work towards a solution in the middle. The threat of future regulations may be enough to keep ISPs honest.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Phokus is the only retort you have to somebody who has more knowledge in this field than anybody on this msgboard a single thread where he was wrong? Sweet jesus if being wrong means we shouldnt listen to somebody this entire msgboard should be shut down yesterday.

And who the hell do you think is going to enforce any NN law if it is enacted? The same FCC you apparently dont trust. And who the hell was president when the FCC did smack down comcast?

Dislodge your mouth from the Democrats asshole for 10 seconds and breath. They can use toilet paper like the rest of us.

You apparently have all day to spend on the internet. Why dont you go learn about the stuff Spidey talks about instead of using your braindead comeback about TWC.

Hahahahaha, you actually think that's the only thread where spidey was spectacularly wrong, ahahahahaha

JUST off the top of my head:

1) There was one thread where a guy tried to get to his hotel room but he mistook his room number and tried to (unsuccessfully) unlock the door and the guy inside started firing at the door even though the door was locked and he killed the guy. spidey actually thinks that was a morally defensible act of self defense

2) spidey actually thinks having an upside down flag (an old fashioned nautical distress signal that isn't even used by boats anymore) outside your home will get emergency services to actually go to your home because they think your house is on fire or something. Because, you know, calling on your cell phone or going to a neighbor's house to use their phone is too quick and easy.

There are a few others that i'll add later (going to the dentist now) if i can remember.

but LOL at you thinking this is the only time spidey was ever wrong.

As to your other points: if it was encoded into law, it sure as hell is better than NOT having it.

I haven't posted in about a week (hosue hunting). Also, you're one to talk.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Everything you write I can replace "telco" with "filesharers". If we treat this situation as we are in this thread, that the only possible outcomes are the extremes, where consumers lose either way.

You have to have faith in something, and if given the choice, I have more faith in ISPs behaving honestly than I do in filesharers behaving honestly. Of course it's all a relative scale.

My solution is they work towards a solution in the middle. The threat of future regulations may be enough to keep ISPs honest.

Really, fileshares went to congress and received billions for work never completed ? Damn when did that happen ?

The only way I would want ISP to be in charge of what connections get priority is if the status of what packets were delayed and what was prioritized were made public on a daily or weekly basis. Anything less and they can cover it up.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87
Phokus is the only retort you have to somebody who has more knowledge in this field than anybody on this msgboard a single thread where he was wrong? Sweet jesus if being wrong means we shouldnt listen to somebody this entire msgboard should be shut down yesterday.

And who the hell do you think is going to enforce any NN law if it is enacted? The same FCC you apparently dont trust. And who the hell was president when the FCC did smack down comcast?

Dislodge your mouth from the Democrats asshole for 10 seconds and breath. They can use toilet paper like the rest of us.

You apparently have all day to spend on the internet. Why dont you go learn about the stuff Spidey talks about instead of using your braindead comeback about TWC.

Hahahahaha, you actually think that's the only thread where spidey was spectacularly wrong, ahahahahaha

JUST off the top of my head:

1) There was one thread where a guy tried to get to his hotel room but he mistook his room number and tried to (unsuccessfully) unlock the door and the guy inside started firing at the door even though the door was locked and he killed the guy. spidey actually thinks that was a morally defensible act of self defense

2) spidey actually thinks having an upside down flag (an old fashioned nautical distress signal that isn't even used by boats anymore) outside your home will get emergency services to actually go to your home because they think your house is on fire or something. Because, you know, calling on your cell phone or going to a neighbor's house to use their phone is too quick and easy.

There are a few others that i'll add later (going to the dentist now) if i can remember.

but LOL at you thinking this is the only time spidey was ever wrong.

As to your other points: if it was encoded into law, it sure as hell is better than NOT having it.

I haven't posted in about a week (hosue hunting). Also, you're one to talk.

And what does any of that have to do with him talking about his expertise in this field? You have yet to actually address any of his valid arguments about QoS and the role the FCC has already played in restricting ISPs from shaping traffic that competes with their own services. Instead you resort to true form and attack the messenger. As if proving Spidey is wrong in completely unrelated topics will validate your ignorant stance on the subject.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The telco are scared to death of neutrality. The reason is because for years they have charged people for landlines and phone services. Made 5000% profits off features like call waiting. Duped the taxpayers out of billions and now they have a problem. Land line use is dropping so fast that they can't record the figures. Cell phones are the main cause but so is voip.

Cable has a similar problem. People are starting to watch more entertainment online and dropping paid programming.

And on the other side of the issue now with net neutrality your voip and internet tv services are struggling to come through steadily because all your neighbors have bittorrent running transferring terabytes of free porn, while all also simultaneously glued to a youtube video of a frat boy hitting himself with a baseball bat. Your voip call is being broken up because of that.

Oh yea, no reason at all why an ISP would like to have a little bit of control, they just want to screw Modelworks out of as much of his paycheck as they can legally get away with :roll:

I dont think you really have any idea how it works, your isp just dosent hand over all of their bandwidth to you. You get so much that they allot you and you should be free to do with it as you please. If your neighibors are breaking thier connections then maybe they are offering more then they should.

*sigh*

No wonder we're in these pointless arguments, the other side is clueless :roll: All ISPs sell more bandwidth to their customers than they themselves have, and rely on but a percentage of users active at any given time to provide full speed to everyone.

Guaranteed bandwidth is available, it costs a shitload. Those who treat their residential internet connection as guaranteed bandwidth to fileshare porn, music, movies, etc., is screwing over everyone else in speed and costs.

 

[Modelworks]

Looks like we will soon see just how much influence the telecoms have:
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/39776.php?source=rss

EFF Wins Release of Telecom Lobbying Records

­A US judge has ordered the government to release more records about the lobbying campaign to provide immunity to the telecommunications giants that participated in the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered the records be provided to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) by October 9, 2009.

The decision is part of EFF's long-running battle to gather information about telecommunications lobbying conducted as Congress considered granting immunity to companies that participated in illegal government electronic surveillance. Telecom immunity was eventually passed as part of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) of 2008, but a bill that would repeal the immunity -- called the JUSTICE Act -- was introduced in the Senate last week.

"Today's ruling is a major victory for government transparency," said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "As the court recognized, it was unlawful for the government to deny Americans access to this information in the midst of the debate over telecom immunity last year. We're pleased these records will now be available to the public as Congress considers the JUSTICE Act."

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Everything you write I can replace "telco" with "filesharers". If we treat this situation as we are in this thread, that the only possible outcomes are the extremes, where consumers lose either way.

You have to have faith in something, and if given the choice, I have more faith in ISPs behaving honestly than I do in filesharers behaving honestly. Of course it's all a relative scale.

My solution is they work towards a solution in the middle. The threat of future regulations may be enough to keep ISPs honest.

Really, fileshares went to congress and received billions for work never completed ? Damn when did that happen ?

The only way I would want ISP to be in charge of what connections get priority is if the status of what packets were delayed and what was prioritized were made public on a daily or weekly basis. Anything less and they can cover it up.

You really do have a touch of paranoia in you.

If ISPs ever did make their data public, I think we'd all be surprised at just how overwhelming porn, bittorrent, rapidshare, etc. are on networks.



You have to go back and assess what the ultimate goal is in all of this, and then look at whether net neutrality guarantees this or not. The internet is a finite resource that we all have work with each other to share.