Great.... :/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/0 ... 26972.html
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/ ... ight-ahead

/movestokorea

When will the old people in congress and senate just fucking die already.

IMMA LOWER TAXES ON PREMIUM SPITTOONS!

Ghost Dog_TSGK wrote:When will the old people in congress and senate just fucking die already.

IMMA LOWER TAXES ON PREMIUM SPITTOONS!

It's NOT the fault of congress -_-

The FCC (under the supervision of the president) blocked comcast's attempts to arbitrarily charge more money for things like watching/downloading videos or the ability to “block or slow specific sites”. The D.C. Appeals court which has a conservative majority and is known for siding with big business is to blame. Sorry to make this sh*t partisan but it is in reality. It is indeed one major blow to the era of our internet freedom IMO...

provost wrote:/movestokorea

/hitchesaridewithcon

I think it's fucking GREAT!!!

The FCC can go to hell.
Good job stopping the Gubbmint from further control over the private sector.

My question is what is this "Save the Internet" bullshit!!??!
Is there a problem with FIOS?
Are folks being discriminated or unable to use the internet?

Net Neutrality is just another Gubbmint power grab.
Private companies that invest billions can administer their networks as they see fit.
Broadband is not a right.

I have a real beef! Business does NOTHING arbitrarily!
Insurance companies do not operate arbitrarily and Internet Providers do not operate arbitrarily.
Much of their bandwidth is reserved for real business concern, you know, so business can thrive and folks can have a job!!??!?
Hellloooooooo.

The DC Court ruled like it did because the case had no standing whatsoever.
Even the Neutrality argument is NOT that downloaders are charged more.
The providers charge users, like business networks MORE and make more.

Frankly, to treat Torrent downloaders on the same footing as a business network is frickin nuts.

Net nuetrality..."is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic"

This ruling was a big blow against that....internet providers in years come could easily abuse their new power IMO. This case will most likely reach the supreme court but that has a conservative majority too, looks as if this ruling is here to stay quite awhile.

So this ruling would give Comcast and many others the power to block steam ports or slow it down simply by classing it as a peer 2 peer system or whtever they deem the excuse is?

Well wouldn't this Neutrality concept be so awesome, on another planet or universe where bandwidth is unlimited!!!!

Leftist nonsense. FREE and DEMOCRATIC! Let the Gubbmint free us!
Grownups know there is limited bandwidth and realities to deal with.

I suggest you start to examine them, without the Leftist Business is evil bullshit.

Question: Who and What is being BLOCKED by anybody now?
Where does this big issue come from?

Jeeez, there is gigaPorn, Mom's Knitting blog, 1000 Gamer sites, millions of servers operating.
What is the problem?

The Argumentalizer wrote:I think it's fucking GREAT!!!

You say that now, but wait until you're having to pay that extra $2.99 a month to view deadhookers.com or buyhardliquoronline.com.

What makes you think this will be a problem?
Please answer this question as it is pivotal to your argument.

The only issue i am aware of is that the Companies want to reserve space on THEIR networks for high volume business traffic, which seems more important than my need to view DeadHookers.net.

All this nonsense is leftist socialist crap.
I suppose the "Democratic Net" folks are so happy with the FCC's control over AM/FM radio!??!

Sounds like folks want Free Pron and want the Gubbmint to ensure it, which is bullshit.
The Net isn't free. There is no free lunch.

The Argumentalizer wrote:What makes you think this will be a problem?
Please answer this question as it is pivotal to your argument.

The only issue i am aware of is that the Companies want to reserve space on THEIR networks for high volume business traffic, which seems more important than my need to view DeadHookers.net.

All this nonsense is leftist socialist crap.
I suppose the "Democratic Net" folks are so happy with the FCC's control over AM/FM radio!??!

Sounds like folks want Free Pron and want the Gubbmint to ensure it, which is bullshit.
The Net isn't free. There is no free lunch.

oh okay, so the "evil leftists" are all about paying a company in order to have bandwith, in fact, they're doing it right now. You pay for the bandwith usage and they set the prices, if you exceed your limit, you pay for it. If it "hogs" their bandwith, isn't this company's fault if they can't provide a decent service or live up to what they claim to be able to offer?

See it as a service, if a restaurant claims " Food served under 5min! " the restaurant gets so popular that it can't live to it's promises, they either hire, grow and fix it, or people complain, leave and the place eventually closes or become miserable.

What people are complaining about is that now, this restaurant is telling you " I fucked up due to bad management, but i'm gonna use the law to help me out! "

No.

People pay for food under 5 min, like we pay for a given amount of bandwidth. When you pay you expect your food under 5 min, and you expect to be able on your pron if you payed for it.

You can't do business, you don't. The business you're in is bottlenecked by technology or by overpopularity? Deal with it or close. Pure hard rightist business. Exactly what's missing in this case.

I was asking for specific examples. As i said, the networks are owned. They are not free. There is no such thing as free.
Profits baby! they provide jobs, spread wealth, and provide growth and new technology.
You didn't think Verizon is a non-profit, did you?

Everyone wants free stuff.
It is our right, free health care, free VOLPE, free internet...

it's a load of nonsense.

Edit. Conflict, your argument is bizarre. You want bandwidth for business to do their thing, yet, Net Neutrality treats torrent downloaders the same as enterprise.

I still don't see any specific arguments here.
All i see is "Let Obama take control over the Internet."
We want free stuff.

It doesn't fly.
There is limited bandwidth (and supposedly, limited Gubbmint) and folks want to treat it as unlimited, and that is just plain liberal nonsense.
I believe the Left is making a false argument and not paying attention to reality and that is all.

The Argumentalizer wrote:
Edit. Conflict, your argument is bizarre. You want bandwidth for business to do their thing, yet, Net Neutrality treats torrent downloaders the same as enterprise.

I still don't see any specific arguments here.
All i see is "Let Obama take control over the Internet."
We want free stuff.

It doesn't fly.

The company whines people upload too much therefore there should be regulations?

What the fuck, make me pay for it instead? People upload/Download too much? raise the prices. Gtfo with your laws and regulations off the internet is what i'm saying.
Comcasts and verizon are the leftists here in my eyes, begging for help while they get their bandwidth raped away by customers while they're being unable to respond to the growing demand.

What's happening is this: Comcast lets you upload only (example) 10 mb / day for 10$/month. But what if I do 50 mb / day? well, simple enough, they'll charge me extra. But get this, if you keep going, and you pay, and pay, no matter the extra, these companies WILL lock your account and tell you you keep breaking the limits.

What the fuck. I give you MY money for YOU to develop your business and expand and take over the world, and you don't let me because of bs limitations?
The problem is, it stops the evolution of technology, it stops the content quality (streaming HD video wouldve been never possible with the better bandwitdh internet plans we have today etc..) it's overall fucking stupid.

A business usually struggles to pinpoint his customer's demand in order to grow and take over. Now people are pointing at the problem, check in their hand, saying
"I will and want to pay more for more " but they won't give it. Instead they're gonna cap internet usage instead of trying to figure out a way to serve their client base.


That's like saying " cars are a source of pollution and pollution is a problem, therefore, we will limit you of using your car twice a day" instead of figuring out how to make cars that ARENT a source of pollution. People will and want to pay for internet, they always did, they're used to it. They just want to see the fucking companies DELIVER.

"What the fuck, make me pay for it instead? People upload/Download too much? raise the prices. Gtfo with your laws and regulations off the internet is what i'm saying."

Like i said, your argument is bizarre. You want me to gtfo with MY laws and regulations, by pulling for the Federal Communications Commission to have MORE control and regulations over the internet!??!?!?

First off, they aren't MY laws. And the court made a simple ruling that the FCC has no STANDING to determine how providers can use THEIR networks.
As much as i would like to live in a liberal world where there is unlimited bandwidth, free stuff, and Unicorns, i do not.
And neither do you.

There is no major problem here besides wishful nonsense and MORE Gubbmint control.
Be careful what you ask for.
You may get it.

EDIT:
"What's happening is this: Comcast lets you upload only (example) 10 mb / day for 10$/month. But what if I do 50 mb / day? well, simple enough, they'll charge me extra. But get this, if you keep going, and you pay, and pay, no matter the extra, these companies WILL lock your account and tell you you keep breaking the limits."

Comcast, no matter how evil, has a business plan and operating costs and needs to minimize variables.
If you use consistently more bandwidth than you sign up for, there needs to be a new contract with them.
How do folks use way more bandwidth than they pay for?!?
Isn't it capped?
I don't see any specific instances where accounts were closed.
I see a lot of anecdotal stuff.

As far as stifling innovation and technolgy, are you still on dial-up or something?
Having trouble downloading porn?
I ask again, what is the specific problem here?

(We get FIOS and it's the bomb! The FCC can go to Hell, and so can Obama!)

The Argumentalizer wrote: All i see is "Let Obama take control over the Internet."
We want free stuff.

Try again, Obama appointed an FCC chairman that believes websites are all equal, all have the ability to be viewed and none have the right to be blocked, slowed or have tolls put on them (unless there is premium content a website owner requires to be payed for) to view. For once you should be able to see a liberal this time is advocating for true freedom, though it may be incomprehensible.

All websites are not equal.
None has the right use a network.
You pay to play.

Treating all websites as equal is not liberalism, but LEFTISM.
Liberalism is limited gubbmint and private markets and Private ownership.
Porn is not equal to Ebay.

The providers are prioritizing their bandwidth, that is all.

Evidently, 3 judges disagree with Obama's Pick, on Law and the role of Gubbmint, specifically the FCC.
Good for them.

The Argumentalizer wrote:All websites are not equal.
None has the right use a network.
You pay to play.

I pay for a service so I may view whatever I please on the internet. I will not be blocked from certain sights because my ISP says so, if you love this decision so much go signup for comcast and have fun with it as the decades go on....more liberal companies like TimeWarner should remain loyal to this ideal and I will continue to pay for their service until they too break my trust and viewing freedom for profit, in which case I'll move to the next.

Yeah, well you talk about IDEALS but not reality.
Have you been blocked from anything?

I ASK FOR A 4TH TIME, what is your specific grievance?!?!?
What is the specific problem you are talking about?
Who is getting blocked and turned off?
Are you having a problem view porn?
WHAT!?!?

Net Neutrality is NOT about ISP blocking sites.

The issue is ISP's being able to reserve bandwidth for high volume PAYING business packages and clients.
This stuff about blocking sites is made up nonsense.
I haven't seen any evidence of this practice.

And i ASKED for it for the 5th time.
Come with a real argument or stay home.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Yeah, well you talk about IDEALS but not reality.
Have you been blocked from anything?

I ASK FOR A 4TH TIME, what is your specific grievance?!?!?
What is the specific problem you are talking about?
Who is getting blocked and turned off?
Are you having a problem view porn?
WHAT!?!?

Why can't you picture the long term? Do you know how the Chinese government blocks websites? It pays ISP providers in China (including Google) through bribes, threats, and government funding to block whatever sites they deem "dangerous". Nothing is blocked yet, no website is slowed yet, no website has a toll put on it yet, but that's because the ruling was just handed down today. Give it years and you will see the rise of for profit viewing restrictions handed down by your ISP.

Why don't you deal with real problems, as they exist, when they exist!?!
Why are you so quick to hand this over to the FCC?
Especially when there is no problem.

I asked you for your own personal experience with any problem like you describe.
This is now the 6th time.
Still no REAL REAL.

And this ain't China, so don't even go there.

"Basically you want some very detailed post with screenshots quotes and interview about something that is ABOUT to happen?

No one's experiencing anything now, we're all going home I guess. We can just forsee the upcoming bs, flaws and loophole this new model will have."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, is it too much to ask what the problem is, when folks are claiming there is a big problem!?!?!
I always believe you do not MAKE problems where they don't exist.
And as a conservative, i don't have solutions, but an approach: Proceed with caution, especially turning power over to gubbmint.
I believe it is prudence and it is a virtue.
This Neutrality stuff is overblown leftist nonsense.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Why don't you deal with real problems, as they exist, when they exist!?!
Why are you so quick to hand this over to the FCC?
Especially when there is no problem.

I asked you for your own personal experience with any problem like you describe.
This is now the 6th time.
Still no REAL REAL.

And this ain't China, so don't even go there.

Let's pretend someone hear this on the news: " After a study, it's been decided that any emprisoned criminals who did 10 years + are now cured from any problematic behaviors or beliefs, the release process is starting today "

This someone post about it on a forum and the community reacts

Impala walks in: " Well hey guys, get real, has there been anything bad that happened yet? no? let's wait for a problem to happen to react."

Va|iums wrote:

Ghost Dog_TSGK wrote:When will the old people in congress and senate just fucking die already.

IMMA LOWER TAXES ON PREMIUM SPITTOONS!

It's NOT the fault of congress -_-

The FCC

Well in that case, I expect them to be stupid.

provost wrote:

The Argumentalizer wrote:What makes you think this will be a problem?
Please answer this question as it is pivotal to your argument.

The only issue i am aware of is that the Companies want to reserve space on THEIR networks for high volume business traffic, which seems more important than my need to view DeadHookers.net.

All this nonsense is leftist socialist crap.
I suppose the "Democratic Net" folks are so happy with the FCC's control over AM/FM radio!??!

Sounds like folks want Free Pron and want the Gubbmint to ensure it, which is bullshit.
The Net isn't free. There is no free lunch.

oh okay, so the "evil leftists" are all about paying a company in order to have bandwith, in fact, they're doing it right now. You pay for the bandwith usage and they set the prices, if you exceed your limit, you pay for it. If it "hogs" their bandwith, isn't this company's fault if they can't provide a decent service or live up to what they claim to be able to offer?

See it as a service, if a restaurant claims " Food served under 5min! " the restaurant gets so popular that it can't live to it's promises, they either hire, grow and fix it, or people complain, leave and the place eventually closes or become miserable.

What people are complaining about is that now, this restaurant is telling you " I fucked up due to bad management, but i'm gonna use the law to help me out! "

No.

People pay for food under 5 min, like we pay for a given amount of bandwidth. When you pay you expect your food under 5 min, and you expect to be able on your pron if you payed for it.

You can't do business, you don't. The business you're in is bottlenecked by technology or by overpopularity? Deal with it or close. Pure hard rightist business. Exactly what's missing in this case.

you have limits to the amount you download wow

Impala greatest dmu troll.

Ive read that the U.S./NA networks are far far insuperior to many networks overseas. We have less bandwidth than what the technology is capable of. There are some companies that want to upgrade the networks to allow for faster bandwidth and faster internet. The reason is because it will be good for buisness. Most people seem to be in favor of moving toward upgrading the system.

I would like to get faster service but right now Fios wont install in my area because of some 5 year non-competitive agreement they have with the local cable company. So if some kind of upgrade happens, it will be a good thing.

The only thing wrong with my broadband is the price, and no I have no limit, few do in NA.

Para this has nothing to do with upgrades...our ISP providers far eclipse France's leading ISP providers in profit margins, by billions. Our problem with our bandwidth coverage and our seeming reluctancy to upgrade is more due to laziness, greed and monolopy contracts to keep smaller more innovative companies implementing more effecient systems.

The Argumentalizer wrote:What makes you think this will be a problem?
The only issue i am aware of is that the Companies want to reserve space on THEIR networks for high volume business traffic, which seems more important than my need to view DeadHookers.net

Okay, so setting a standard for making bigger ISPs such as comcast upgrade their equipment and make two different segments for the networking between business and home users is to much to ask?

And a limited bandwidth? Bandwidth could practically be unlimited with newer technologies.

Currently you're paying for a certain amount of bandwidth to be used at any given time. If speeds are cut back due to your ISP saying "Nope fuck you we don't like what you're using" you're not going to have a problem with that? You're paying for access at a certain speed, but nope they're saying "Oh, smtp, fuck that, we're going to make you send out email at 1 byte per second." This is what power they will have if the ruling stays the same.

While I'm at it, most businesses SHOULD go with something like T1 or T3 or even better connections that are dedicated unshared connections. Then it wouldn't even be a problem to deal with bandwidth, because it would put it on businesses to use proper connections for their sites (buildings).

Okay, i never said leftists were evil. I think they are statists and misguided.
I keep hearing the internet is supposed to be democratic, that folks like free, that they want everything treated equally, and that uncaring business concerns are causing a problem blocking access and generally screwing people.

Sure sounds like nonsense to me.
I haven't seen any evidence of a problem.
I see folks want Gubbmint to regulate the internet.
Do folks understand that is what they are asking for?
MORE GUBBMINT!??!! On the INTERNET!?!?

What next? Allow them to control and regulate the internet, guess what comes next?
VAT. Internet wide VAT, on top of the huge taxes on your service.
And then Fairness doctrine (after all, you are asking for equal treatment of every outcome!).

All in response to problem that doesn't exist.
Be thankful for the Awesome Bounty that capitalism provides.
It developed your PC. It runs the Networks.
It designed Cable TV.
Count the blessings instead of this leftist garbage.

EDIT: VAL - "Our problem with our bandwidth coverage and our seeming reluctancy to upgrade is more due to laziness, greed and monolopy contracts to keep smaller more innovative companies implementing more effecient systems."

^This is entirely fictitious nonsense.
Business is in it to make money, not limit their market. There is no evidence whatsoever this is true.
I doubt there one instance Valiums can cite where cable or ISP providers didn't work to upgrade their systems and bandwidth.
And my point was there IS a limit on bandwidth and excess bandwidth is a waste of money.
FIOS is a prime example of upgrade.
Also, these companies have budgets for upgrading there service every year. Every year they are working to upgrade.

Yes, there is an issue with monopolies in smaller markets, but they come from GUBBMINT not business.
Gubbmint locks out competition.

Simple solution to both sides: Per-megabyte billing on a increasing bandwidth-per-time-incriment sliding scale (slope of sliding scale to be determined). The providers get paid appropriately and arent at serious risk of usage exceeding capacity (and theyll have plenty of $__$ to increase capacity if/when this happens), and the users have no limitations or restrictions outside the thickness of their pocketbooks.

The only demographic i can foresee feeling seriously hamstrung by this are hardcore torrent users, but i also cant see anyone else shedding tears over a bunch of cheapasses lamenting that the cost to steal multiple movies/games/music from the net suddenly exceeded that of just legally purchasing the products.

The Argumentalizer wrote: EDIT: VAL - "Our problem with our bandwidth coverage and our seeming reluctancy to upgrade is more due to laziness, greed and monolopy contracts to keep smaller more innovative companies implementing more effecient systems."

^This is entirely fictitious nonsense.
Business is in it to make money, not limit their market. There is no evidence whatsoever this is true.
I doubt there one instance Valiums can cite where cable or ISP providers didn't work to upgrade their systems and bandwidth.
And my point was there IS a limit on bandwidth and excess bandwidth is a waste of money.
FIOS is a prime example of upgrade.
Also, these companies have budgets for upgrading there service every year. Every year they are working to upgrade.

Yes, there is an issue with monopolies in smaller markets, but they come from GUBBMINT not business.
Gubbmint locks out competition.

Working every year to improve their services? no proof whatsoever? take a good look at your ISP's plan, look at how fast technology grows and look at how slow they're upgrading on purpose.
Why on EARTH would they give you 800 mb/s if they can gradually make you pay for years from 20mbs to 800.

Look at Apple's iPad, if you open it there's a socket for a webcam there, connectors and everything, i'm pretty damn sure the next version is gonna get one. Why didn't the first one get a camera? fucking iphone has it and it's THAT much smaller. That's how this kind of business works, fooling the ignorants.

Like oversea calls, please, everything is VOIP now, knowing this, why is talking on the mic in game, msn, skype etc... free " well you paid for these things and for your internet"
fair enough, but chances are, your phone provider is ALSO your ISP (it's fairly common) and ooooh see what they did there? As of today, there is NO reason whatsoever anyone should pay additional fee for oversea call. the only reason these fees are still there is because people are clueless and are used to pay.

the list goes on and on and on.

Yeah, so technology doesn't move at your pace and is found wanting by you. What else is new?
Why do you expect an ISP to GIVE you anything.

Are you just against profits in general?
Do you want the gubbmint to control everything?
Are you really unhappy with technology and the crazy leaps i have seen in my lifetime.
When i was a kid, the coolest technology for TV was a motorized antennae so you could get 8 channels.
Phone had circular dial rings.
There were no cell phones.
No cable.
No Internet.
No PC.
No HDTV
No satellite TV.

It seems like a lot of whining to me.
Why wouldn't an ISP upgrade its systems if it meant more profit!??!!
Also, i gave an example of FIOS, while the other side hasn't given anything.

The Argumentalizer wrote: EDIT: VAL - "Our problem with our bandwidth coverage and our seeming reluctancy to upgrade is more due to laziness, greed and monolopy contracts to keep smaller more innovative companies implementing more effecient systems."

^This is entirely fictitious nonsense.
Business is in it to make money, not limit their market. There is no evidence whatsoever this is true.
I doubt there one instance Valiums can cite where cable or ISP providers didn't work to upgrade their systems and bandwidth.
And my point was there IS a limit on bandwidth and excess bandwidth is a waste of money.
FIOS is a prime example of upgrade.
Also, these companies have budgets for upgrading there service every year. Every year they are working to upgrade.

Yes, there is an issue with monopolies in smaller markets, but they come from GUBBMINT not business.
Gubbmint locks out competition.

lol yeah im done with this thread and arguing with you. You claim company monolopies are fictitious, that they dont try to limit their market and they dont contract the highest power lawyers in the world to write complicated contracts to keep smaller newer companies at bay, I think you're living in a dream world. I think its pretty sad really you really believe what just wrote above.

As Edge explained to me this case is actually about RIAA wanting to control bit torrent channels so peer to peer users will no longer be able to download music for free, its not about lack of bandwidth, in fact we have almost an infinite amount. It's about big business and big music wanting to control its profits nothing more. Unfortunately the side effect of this ruling is it does create more opportunites for ISP's to charge for viewing certain things, and the right to slow or block whatever websites they feel.

As I explained, it's all fictitious nonsense. Monopolies are handed out by the gubbmint and law, the same folks you want to regulate the internet. This issue is not about the RIAA. There is no way to control P2p file sharing. It is protected under the Digital Millenium Act. I issue is Net Neutrality and treating all traffic equal, which the court found the FCC has no standing to regulate, just like the FCC has no standing telling radio companies what talk shows they can air, or forcing a Fairness Doctrine.

The problem is NOT a problem. Nothing is being blocked and the P2P traffic has not been capped.
If that happens, there is recourse under the law separately.
File Sharing is a freedom that isn't going away.

Some anecdotal future stuff about what may happen, RIAA, file sharing...is not an argument to allow FCC total control over networks.
Please understand that you do not want the Gubbmint interfering on the Internet, and certainly not because of blown out of proportion future maybe nonsense.
And remember, when the opposing side asks for evidence to support your case 6 times and receives none, you lose.

Your posts get worse as they go on. In the court majority opinion if you read it, but I understand you don't have LexisNexis, you can still find a quote through google I've found though from it that reads "The FCC has no authority to block Comcast's efforts to block P2P networks". This ruling in fact voids specific provisions in the Digital Millenium Act, and in fact ushers in the ability of ISP providers to block or slow P2P networks.

I don't understand why you keep throwing around white lies, misconceptions and idealistic falsehoods as if they are fact?

You throw around nonsense, problems that haven't happened.

This ruling arose because Bitorrent traffic was SLOWED, not blocked. Nothing has been blocked.
Your point about the RIAA is horseshit because the RIAA has no relationship with ISP business and there is no conspiracy.
Frankly, that you want bittorrent traffic to be equal with Telemedicine and Commerce is ridiculous.
Mostly, so folks can share free stuff.

As for the whole argument, it isn't the end of the world. there is one very devastating point to my argument: CONGRESS CAN PASS A LAW!!!
That's right!
Amazing, isn't it!

You have it ALL wrong. Giving unelected government bureaucracies power over the business models of an important (and mostly trouble-free) ISP sector is NOT DEMOCRACY.
Having your elected representatives pass a law is Democratic.

It is crazy. Leftist. Undemocratic.
It is the transfer of power from the private sector to bureaucrats.

There, that is my strongest point and your argument is unconvincing.
---------------
"The FCC has no authority to block Comcast's efforts to block P2P networks"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is supposed to strengthen your argument?!?!? This ruling doesn't mean P2P is blocked or threatened.
As i pointed out, no blocking and Comcast has stated it had no plan to do block anything.
This ruling means the FCC does not have the power of Congress.
Everything else is fantastic over-wrought poot.

Majority opinion!??! It was unanimous.

The surest way you could make residential/non-commercial users pay more for the internet is make it equal with higher volume business and telemedicine users.

Do lefties think about this?

You were right on one point, in that I made mistake in saying that quote was from a majority opinion, it was from a unanimous opinion (3-0). Everything else you're dead wrong, you say comcast has no partnership or relations to RIAA, http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10204047-93.html please read that. RIAA is also has official business relations with Comcast.

You've conceded ground to me it seems however that I was right in that ISP providers now wield the ability to block or slow FTP networks which by this ruling they factually do and the unanimous opinion in the court even states so, but your central arguement against it is that nothing has happened, and that NEVER OH EVER WILL ISP'S EVAR BLOCK P2P CLIENTS IN THE FUTURE CAUSE IT HASNT HAPPENED NOW. That's as dumb as pointing to a random guy on a street who has full capability to committ a crime and say, "That man will never committ a crime". GTFO impala with your crap, I think almost all of us have had enough.

Va|iums wrote:You were right on one point, in that I made mistake in saying that quote was from a majority opinion, it was from a unanimous opinion (3-0). Everything else you're dead wrong, you say comcast has no partnership or relations to RIAA, http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10204047-93.html please read that. RIAA is also has official business relations with Comcast.

You've conceded ground to me it seems however that I was right in that ISP providers now wield the ability to block or slow FTP networks which by this ruling they factually do and the unanimous opinion in the court even states so, but your central arguement against it is that nothing has happened, and that NEVER OH EVER WILL ISP'S EVAR BLOCK P2P CLIENTS IN THE FUTURE CAUSE IT HASNT HAPPENED NOW. That's as dumb as pointing to a random guy on a street who has full capability to committ a crime and say, "That man will never committ a crime". GTFO impala with your crap, I think almost all of us have had enough.

they will also disconnect your network temporarily which is a pain if you d/l big files liek whole series and such...some of the better torrent sites have banned some torrent clients as well liek:
ABC
All BitComet up to v5.x
Bitbuddy
BitLord 1.1
BitSpirit 3.3.2.100
BitTorrent++
Limewire (all versions)
Nova Torrent
Older Azureus versions
Rufus
Shareaza
TorrentStorm
Transmissions
µtorrent1.7.1
µtorrent 1.7.5 (fake version)


use port 80 if you have probs as its never blocked

tl;dr version pl0x!

badinfluence wrote:tl;dr version pl0x!

Sigh...tl;dr = this

1. Obama appoints a FCC chairman who believes in the concept of net nuetrality
2. RIAA partners with Comcast in both overt and cover manners to push back against internet piracy
3. FCC Chairman blocks Comcasts efforts to slow and block P2P networks.
4. Comcast goes to court; it chooses an area to go to court where it knows it has a high chance to get a conservative appeals court jurisdiction; a court tactic known as "The court lottery".
5. Comcast wins the lottery, the particular court of appeals has 2 very strong conservatives and 1 moderate liberal, is known for for siding with big business in previous decisions.
6. Comcast wins; judges unanimously agree the FCC no longer has jurisdiction over internet restrictions.
7. Comcast/AT+T are already supposedly making plans block P2P networks. Time Warner could be soon to follow but has not indicated it will be doing this yet.

If that's even too long to read and understand just kill yourself kthxbye.

Glad I don't have mainstream internet, not to say they won't be influenced but so far charter does not give a fuck about any of this, gigs of torrents and they never say a word, dloading at 3.5 mbps steady.

The Argumentalizer wrote:You throw around nonsense, problems that haven't happened.

This ruling arose because Bitorrent traffic was SLOWED, not blocked. Nothing has been blocked.

Wrong, for a period of time, comcast blocked all traffic to 4chan.org. Also slowing slowing down Bittorrent traffic isn't a good thing either, nor peer-to-peer traffic. A lot of the things we've come to enjoy are peer to peer. Whats to stop businesses like comcast from screwing us over and charging us for P2P use as well with a ruling like this? =\

"You want P2P to be fast as well? Yea, 10 Dollars Extra A Month. or the 10DEAM plan" DEAAAAMMMMMM, well its missing an N but you get the point. =p Even if its speculation that they'll do something like this you can make an educated guess just by looking at history.

I never heard anything about 4Chan being blocked. Can you link me to something?
You mean the traffic to 4 chan was blocked on COMCAST for a period of time for some reason, or it was on purpose?

I do know that P2P takes huge bandwidth.
Did the folks get their porn and free music or not?

Seems pretty flimsy anecdotal stuff to get all up about.
Especially asking gubbmint to take over the internet.

Truth is, the Congress does not want the FCC fooling with the internet.
Yup. Its very unpopular with the folks. Votes, you know.
Its also unpopular with the DC Circuit.
And it will be unpopular with the SC.

Bet!??!

time to feed the troll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan#ISP_bans

You miss the whole point of my argument and the ruling.

The FCC did not prove there was a problem, nor that they had standing in regulating in a sector that WAS, hands off.
The FCC literally does not have the power to butt in on Providers business plan and networks.
This is a good thing, because DESPITE the horrible problems on the internet (4Chan? Downloading frr stuff) completely exaggerated, we are a nation of LAW and the FCC are unelected doofuses unable to run a company like Comcast at a profit, in a largely unregulated sector, where the FCC has no Priori powers.

That is why we have elected officials, that represent the PEOPLE!
If they want to treat 4 Chan like ADT or CITI, or whatever, SOBEIT.

The whole argument boils down, not to the nonsense anecdotes and horror stories, but POWER.
And what you are asking is NOT DEMOCRATIC, but more unbridled gubbmint power.

As i said, you should be careful what you ask for.
GO SLOW!
Think this out.
Understand that business operates by plan and not arbitrarily.

Whatever points i have conceded have been returned.
I sided with the law and so will the Supreme Court.
It's like Scalia says, pass a law!

EDIT: Well it seems, i the Wiki Blas posted, it was NOT censorship, but the realities of an imperfect world.
One thing i do notice is the tendency for Liberal knee jerk reaction ie "They are banning 4Chan! Ultraman engage!

It's nonsense.
" — In the end, this wasn't a sinister act of censorship, but rather a bit of a mistake and a poorly executed, disproportionate response on AT&T's part. Whoever pulled the trigger on blackholing the site probably didn't anticipate [nor intend] the consequences of doing so. We're glad to see this short-lived debacle has prompted renewed interest and debate over net neutrality and Internet censorship—two very important issues that don't get nearly enough attention—so perhaps this was all just a blessing in disguise.[96]"

It was in response to an attack, so says Wiki.

Fucking Rico did this shit on purpose, just to get me going!
You...........

Va|iums wrote:Sigh...tl;dr = this

1. Obama appoints a FCC chairman who believes in the concept of net nuetrality
2. RIAA partners with Comcast in both overt and cover manners to push back against internet piracy
3. FCC Chairman blocks Comcasts efforts to slow and block P2P networks.
4. Comcast goes to court; it chooses an area to go to court where it knows it has a high chance to get a conservative appeals court jurisdiction; a court tactic known as "The court lottery".
5. Comcast wins the lottery, the particular court of appeals has 2 very strong conservatives and 1 moderate liberal, is known for for siding with big business in previous decisions.
6. Comcast wins; judges unanimously agree the FCC no longer has jurisdiction over internet restrictions.
7. Comcast/AT+T are already supposedly making plans block P2P networks. Time Warner could be soon to follow but has not indicated it will be doing this yet.

If that's even too long to read and understand just kill yourself kthxbye.

gd u make me wanna vomit vals. are u just a fucking partisan hack or completely ignorant?

obama and his appointee to the FCC, Julius Genachowski, have nothing to do with this ruling. NOTHING!!! r u trying to rewrite time? history?

back in august of 2008, the FCC handed comcast a cease-and-desist order and required the company to disclose to subscribers in the future how it plans to manage traffic. the FCC chairman was Kevin Martin, a Republican. and yes, Martin sided with 2 Democratic commissioners giving the measure a 3-2 approval. OMFG!!!!! and the four original principles of net neutrality were adopted in 2005 by another Republican FCC Chairman, Michael Powell. HSOMFGNW!!!!

and those evil conservative judges removing the FCC's jurisdiction over internet restrictions? bullshit. back in 1986 the Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC has no power to regulate "unless and until Congress confers power upon it".

this whole net neutrality thing just baffles me. how do we propose to the keep the internet open? regulate it! ffs.

Your retort was pretty stupid. You ask what the FCC and Julius Genachowski have to do with this. Do you know who Comcast sued and named one of the lead defendants? The FCC and Julius Genachowski, this case had everything to do with the FCC. Also your supreme court case was incorrect, it ruled on matters not specific to direct internet censorship or blocking, otherwise the case wouldnt even have been heard in appelate court nor an appeals court if the Supreme Court had ruled on it.

One more thing, you know Michael Powell is a moderate right? He gets heat and some label him a RINO, he centers on alot of issues, but I give him credit for supporting net neutrality and that he is indeed a republican. But there are differences between a republican and a conservative, you can be a republican but not have a outright conservative philosophy, just ask George W. Bush.

It is true that two of the three deciding judges in this case are known for strong conservative views. Also if you and impala love this ruling so much and support it, go sign up for comcast and have fun with slow loading webpages and fees to use P2P clients, I'll stick with a company who believes in net nuetrality. One more thing the internet is not going to die, Comcast and AT+T have almost unlimited bandwidth, all they need is systems to maximize the potential of their bandwidth capabilities, but theyre too lazy or dont want to spend the money to do like France and Japan have done.

So far: - No evidence of any malicious blocking or future plans to block P2P traffic.
This is a cornerstone of the current argument and it is anecdotal hooey.
In fact, Comcast and others have stated the opposite.

- No strong argument that the FCC SHOULD have the power to determine privately owned networks.
- An acknowledgment that the DC Circuit was unanimous and another overblown bit about some neo-con group of judges in DC.
- No good argument why folks WANT unelected bureaucrats who know jack shit to regulate the internet.
Some incident concerning 4Chan is nowhere near enough of a problem to transfer power to the Federal Gubbmint.

This debate shows that there is a statist leftist disease in our society, stoked by do nothing academics and politicians.
A constant anti-Business, anti-Capitalism socialist agenda.

And Valiums, i see a lot irrelevant stuff about Powell and once again, you assert another fact without backing it up: Unlimited Bandwidth.

No evidence of any real problem in the first place.
And no evidence of almost unlimited bandwidth.
It is illogical and ridiculous to assert there is unlimited bandwidth. There clearly IS ALWAYS a limit. A limit to everything.
Also, assertions that these companies are lazy or greedy or limiting their market (which makes NO FUCKING SENSE unless you are a Marxist!) or not upgrading their systems, have NOT been supported.

Not supported.
I gave an example of FIOS. It IS true these ISPs have budgets and future plans to upgrade and ALWAYS DO. To say they do not is ignorant nonsense.

The major assertions by left leaning folks here on this issue are PATENTLY FALSE.

I'm not even sure why you're still in this arguement Impala, you're the guy that said Comcast never blocked anyone, that Comcast and RIAA never had any relations, that they *have* to conserve bandwidth for business reasons, which is not true. You're nothing more then a subpar debator, who sensationalizes everything, makes everything into an idealogical war and uses assumptions not based on fact or flat out lies....It's like im going through a rerun of the time you claimed Mayans never had written code.

Screw all the politic of if here's what we know;

ISP's now wield the power to block websites, increase fees based on specific websites, or slow specific websites. Fuck everything else, that's whats important for me and what to be educated about so I can change ISP's when it comes time.

Comcast is limiting access to company's that compete with there own services. Why is this wrong? They just spent millions to create it. Now they have no right to make a profit off of it?

You can't walk into a movie theater and sell popcorn at a lower price then the theater co. they built the theater it is their right to sell it for more.

Ya the FCC thought they could stop it, the same way they forced the telecomm co.'s to let other companies come in and use the lines.

ninojman wrote:Comcast is limiting access to company's that compete with there own services. Why is this wrong? They just spent millions to create it. Now they have no right to make a profit off of it?

You can't walk into a movie theater and sell popcorn at a lower price then the theater co. they built the theater it is their right to sell it for more.

Ya the FCC thought they could stop it, the same way they forced the telecomm co.'s to let other companies come in and use the lines.

What are you even talking about? What other companies are it limiting that provide competing services? We've been talking about Comcast seeking to arbitrarily block P2P clients and its right to arbitrarily slow or block websites. If you're referring to what I was talking about in page 2, no one here is arguing that Comcast doesnt have a right to be a monolopy, it does and it is. The bigger question at hand is how far will we allow our ISP the right to block, slow or profit tax what we view? I guess we will find out as the years go on now that there is no limit.

Valiums:
"I'm not even sure why you're still in this arguement Impala, you're the guy that said Comcast never blocked anyone, that Comcast and RIAA never had any relations, that they *have* to conserve bandwidth for business reasons, which is not true. You're nothing more then a subpar debator, who sensationalizes everything, makes everything into an idealogical war and uses assumptions not based on fact or flat out lies....It's like im going through a rerun of the time you claimed Mayans never had written code.

Screw all the politic of if here's what we know;

ISP's now wield the power to block websites, increase fees based on specific websites, or slow specific websites. Fuck everything else, that's whats important for me and what to be educated about so I can change ISP's when it comes time."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-You and others made the case that there was blocking of sites as a RULE, a plan, on purpose, because, sorta, Comcast did not like those sites.
It is patently false and you showed no evidence of any nefarious arbitrary action. YOU exaggerate and jump to conclusions.

-There is no business relationship with RIAA and didn't show that. One is an ISP and the other is an advocacy association protecting artist profits. The ISPs said they would PASS ALONG WARNINGS of RIAA advocacy and that is all.
They are not in bed with each other. They are natural adversaries, if anything. The ISPs would be the target of RIAA suits!
You failed to back up your case on this overblown nonsense.

-You show no evidence of your claim there is unlimited bandwidth. Your claim is ABSURD. No company creates excess service to hang around till it can be sold. This is the same as a manufacturer churning out twice the product they need and sitting on it, wasting money.
It shows you know more about leftism than business. Business expands to FILL demand, not because you wish it to.
Of course there is limited bandwidth. Of course there are business models that business tries to quantify, to maximize it's operations.
Valiums has the OBAMA understanding of business, which is NONE.

You then accuse me of sensationalizing everything, which plays into my rule 2 for debating LEFTIES: They always accuse others of what they do.
It is YOU and others here who have exaggerated a problem, made unsupportable and false claims and sensationalized matters.

Check this out!: "ISP's now wield the power to block websites, increase fees based on specific websites, or slow specific websites. Fuck everything else, that's whats important for me and what to be educated about so I can change ISP's when it comes time."

OMG!!!!!! They are blocking 4CHAN!!!!!! Everyone get all crazy!!!

-I bring up ideology because you are always working out of your leftist ideology, plain to see.
You are armed with Leftist nonsense and social justice bullshit.
It's almost as if you live in Obama world, with unicorns and unlimited bandwidth and free stuff and Benevolent Non-Profit Charity business. A world where MORE idiot bureaucrats fucking up the system is BETTER!!!!
Where more unelected nobodies who could never run a Comcast have more power and that is MORE DEMOCRATIC.

It's really all nonsense.
And so is your entire argument.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Valiums:

-There is no business relationship with RIAA and didn't show that. One is an ISP and the other is an advocacy association protecting artist profits. The ISPs said they would PASS ALONG WARNINGS of RIAA advocacy and that is all.
They are not in bed with each other. They are natural adversaries, if anything. The ISPs would be the target of RIAA suits!
You failed to back up your case on this overblown nonsense.

It's really all nonsense.
And so is your entire argument.

Ok so once again I guess you really believe there is no relationship between RIAA and Comcast, here's one more article for you then. http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.c ... fo_to_riaa
It must be you that lives in a fairy tale world that Comcast works with RIAA free of services, unless you think Comcast is working with RIAA just for the heck of it. In all likelyhood is what Edge hinted of P2P fees... Comcast and AT+T will work with RIAA to not completely block P2P's but to put user fee's for anyone who uses these clients, and share the profits of these fees with the recording industry. That's my guess, we shall see as time goes on like I said.

You claim I post nonsense when you outright lied about 5 things in these three pages. Why should anyone take you seriously when you post almost entirely assumptions and not facts?

Thanks for sharing that story about someone who violated their contract with Comcast by down/uploading illegally copied material.
I don't see any evidence there that Comcast supplied anything.
You just have more junk to muddy up the matter.

Nowhere in that article is there any proof Comcast turned over anything.

I didn't lie about anything.
You keep shifting an argument and posting anecdotal nonsense YOU believe true.
YOU are the one claiming RIAA and Comcast have some kind of nefarious relationship and present no evidence. Accusation from a mom is not evidence.
YOU claimed blocking and i showed that there was an incident caused by an attack.
NO OTHER evidence of banning and blocking has been presented.
You claim that ISPS can block sites THEY DON'T LIKE, yet there is no evidence there ARE sites they don't like.
And maybe you expect me to cry for Torrent downloaders.
Yeah right.
Its YOUR argument, not mine.
It is up to you to support your case and that the court ruled wrongly.

My argument is that It's Comcast's business, that the FCC does not have standing to directly interfere with network traffic.
It's my argument that there is no huge problem with out of control ISPs.
That is all just leftist fear mongering and exaggeration.

Not an argument. Your belief system is what you are debating, not the facts.

Videotron in CAN (ISP like comcast , verizon etc..) has cano slow your internet by almost half the speed on rush hours if they "catch you" downloading from torrent sites.

Can't see why the same pattern wouldn't happen elsewhere.

Does that mean there is a limit to bandwidth and a company must prioritize, or is an evil monolpoly at work?!?!

And Valiums, you are full of idiotic statements. Comcast is an ISP. Why would they be WORKING WITH the RIAA?!?!?!
What is the payback!?!? What does the RIAA offer Comcast in return for services that are unproven.

RIAA can pressure the ISPs. They can sue the ISPs. Otrherwise, there is no relationship you have proven. The ISPs can move to protect themselves from illegal activity.
It all boils down to Leftists and their EVIL CORPORATIONS fucking the people over, so they can't break the law!

Its horseshit.
Of course, if you were a musician depending on royalties for a living, you would have a much different opinion.
Hell, you might have to change out your whole belief system, if Comcast offered you a job.
All you lefties ever do is attack the system. A system that generates growth and new technology and jobs, while you offer nothing.
You distort business and it's activities, exaggerate incidents and dream up all sorts of nightmarish nonsense.
Sensible folks should just tune you out.

Va|iums wrote:

ninojman wrote:Comcast is limiting access to company's that compete with there own services. Why is this wrong? They just spent millions to create it. Now they have no right to make a profit off of it?

You can't walk into a movie theater and sell popcorn at a lower price then the theater co. they built the theater it is their right to sell it for more.

Ya the FCC thought they could stop it, the same way they forced the telecomm co.'s to let other companies come in and use the lines.

What are you even talking about? What other companies are it limiting that provide competing services? We've been talking about Comcast seeking to arbitrarily block P2P clients and its right to arbitrarily slow or block websites. If you're referring to what I was talking about in page 2, no one here is arguing that Comcast doesnt have a right to be a monolopy, it does and it is. The bigger question at hand is how far will we allow our ISP the right to block, slow or profit tax what we view? I guess we will find out as the years go on now that there is no limit.

You must not understand what you are talking about. P2P you can download movies, Comcast sells movies on demand, and movie channels. All of which you could get for free through P2P. Also Skype is similar to there online voice. Why wouldn't they do something about this?

On a business perspective you cant really argue against it ninoj.

I believe in the concept that I pay my ISP to give me internet access to look at and download whatever I damn well please short of CP. I dont want to live in the next China where China flexes its government muscles through ISP's to fund the blocking of whatever they want, but invariably we seem to inch closer towards a crumbling of democracy, perhaps its just inevitable. For me its a moral and idealogical call to keep internet from being censured in ANY way, no one IMO has the right to block any website to me (unless of course we're talking about looking at CP )

The Argumentalizer wrote: Of course, if you were a musician depending on royalties for a living, you would have a much different opinion.

if you were a musician yourself, you'd know that, since internet's around, gigs is what brings you money, not CD sales.
NIN amongst otherb ands, did a great job adopting a very effective internet-oriented business model. The smaller bands "give" their music on myspace and make their $ off gigs.

You know, something no one can download yet, an actual, physical experience, this is how bands makes money now.

The Argumentalizer wrote:OMG!!!!!! They are blocking 4CHAN!!!!!! Everyone get all crazy!!!

Apparently you've never seen /b/ get riled up.

If there was an internet Bill Cosby Impala would be it. The first few sentences/posts hes doing ok but then midway down you start rubbing your eyes and pop an advil. Few more sentences down you start loading your gun and point it at your head. At the very end of his posts you've put down the gun but developed a large drool pool on your desk and have spiraled into state of shell shock and mental anarchy.

Only Impala could pull off talking about Russia and jello in the same post and everyone would think its ok.

Va|iums wrote:On a business perspective you cant really argue against it ninoj.

I believe in the concept that I pay my ISP to give me internet access to look at and download whatever I damn well please short of CP. I dont want to live in the next China where China flexes its government muscles through ISP's to fund the blocking of whatever they want, but invariably we seem to inch closer towards a crumbling of democracy, perhaps its just inevitable. For me its a moral and idealogical call to keep internet from being censured in ANY way, no one IMO has the right to block any website to me (unless of course we're talking about looking at CP )

Yeah but unlike China another co. will pop up that can blast Comcast for doing this and then get customers from it for telling it straight. Any of the ISP's that do not sell movies or internet phone services would be able to blast Comcast for this practice. This would be why they can really only slow and limit, not outright block anything.

The FCC's enabling statute (the law that gives the FCC its authority as an agency) authorized the agency to regulate all wired communications. Obviously, when the enabling statute was passed, cable television didn't exist. When cable came out, cable companies argued in court that the FCC had no authority to regulate cable. The cable companies lost - because cables are wires. The same battle is unfolding today about the internet. The FCC has been ruled to have authority to regulate the internet. The only problem in the FCC ruling that BuckyKatt posted was the fact that that ruling was made against a Title I (unregulated) service. The FCC has full authority to immediately reclassify cable broadband under Title II (regulated) services.

In other words, don't freak out. The FCC is still committed to net neutrality. This isn't a roadblock, its just a puddle.

Mondaysunshine I'm not sure who you are and I'm a little mystified at your presence....

I've read through the Communications Act of 1934 and its consequent amendments including the 1996 Title II amendment because of your post along with BuckyKatt's post and this http://www.internetretailer.com/dailyNews.asp?id=34360. The courts decision does almost seem to covertly direct the FCC's efforts to redirecting broadband to title II.

Thanks for your otherwise non-partisan non-emotional input

Va|iums wrote:
Thanks for your otherwise non-partisan non-emotional input

Obviously he is new here. Welcome to da U.

In any case, this is all informative and entertaining
Carry on

Here is another problem with Valiums argument: He stated that ISPs NOW have the power to block traffic and sites...as if this ruling unleashed a black plague. Such a statement is informative because, part of his argument is that there is a major problem blocking service and traffic as a MATTER OF POLICY.

The ISPs always HAD the capability to block anything. They STILL have the capability shut down ALL traffic on their networks.
In fact, they have the capability to go out of business and shut out millions of internet users.

So, they have had and STILL have that capability.
The fact is, they have not used these capabilities.
They have not engaged in picking sites they don't like.
And as another poster said, they have slowed down file sharing traffic because of excessive bandwidth use, meaning there IS a limit to bandwidth.
There always was a limit.
There always will be a limit.

So, the activity Valiums accuses is not a rule, a nefarious plot, a trust of RIAA and Comcast, a business plan of the ISPs.
The argument is based on exaggeration and nonsense.
The Left is relentless in their insane egalitarian nonsense. Everything is PLOT, a CONSPIRACY to stop illegal activity (!?!?!? law enforcement conspiracy!?!?!), a takeover by evil faceless corporations.

The Whole time, these freedom loving lefties want unelected bureaucrats to regulate the Internet further.
THAT IS FUCKING CRAZY!

Here is a statement from Valiums:
"I believe in the concept that I pay my ISP to give me internet access to look at and download whatever I damn well please short of CP."

And he wants to ensure a free and open internet by having an un-elected Gubbmint bureaucracy, The FCC, to regulate the Internet!??!?!?
He believes the free and open and awesome system we NOW have, should be changed by allowing further Bureaucratic power to the Gubbmint.
Does Valiums even THINK about the consequences of his ideas?
Is he even aware how contradictory his statements are?

Let the FCC in. Let them TAX and Regulate all they like.
Say goodbye to 4Chan.
See ya later file sharing.
Watch your internet bill skyrocket.
All because folks want FREE STUFF and EQUALITY!

tl;dr the completely mysterious Monday summed up the entire situation in a single post along with Bucky's article. Done with this thread....though I'm sure you'll be back again for arguing even though you claimed you'd be done with it

FCC only covers USA right?

keefy wrote:FCC only covers USA right?

yessir. Reading many articles on our own situation I stumbled across articles in the UK that seem to mirror our own situation. It seems ISP's are on a collective global push to stamp out the idea of net nuetrality.

lol It's kinda the Patriot Act but for teh internetz

not surprised, tho

They can block illegal porn sites but they can also block information, if someone has to say something about the Government they don't like, they can block them, lol

Enron anyone?

this was already covered in a TCP/IP course I'm taking by people who knew what their talking about.

I lol at valiums insane attempts at being forum smart - citing communication acts of 1934 and something else I'm to lazy to scroll to view, and then some cool link to a video on the internet where he then formed his only and final opinion - which was also the only thing he most likely viewed.... and then spewed forth something intelligent sounding to assure you silly kids that he knows what is up.

GG's pill popper.

Bring back communism bitches.

90% of peoples problems now days? They get their news from the internet /

whitewolf wrote:Enron anyone?

this was already covered in a TCP/IP course I'm taking by people who knew what their talking about.

I lol at valiums insane attempts at being forum smart - citing communication acts of 1934 and something else I'm to lazy to scroll to view, and then some cool link to a video on the internet where he then formed his only and final opinion - which was also the only thing he most likely viewed.... and then spewed forth something intelligent sounding to assure you silly kids that he knows what is up.

GG's pill popper.

Bring back communism bitches.

90% of peoples problems now days? They get their news from the internet /

you realize im not a pill popper, I've taken a valium maybe once in my life and havent touched drugs in years.... @ the rest of the post its just typical rachkir, AKA the fuck are you talking about?

whitewolf wrote:this was already covered in a TCP/IP course I'm taking by people who knew what their talking about. I lol at valiums insane attempts at being forum smart - citing communication acts of 1934 and something else I'm to lazy to scroll to view

1. A class on internet protocol has NOTHING to do with internet law.

2. You're criticizing valiums for citing to a law when this discussion is ABOUT LAW?

3. Nice job blindly accepting something your internet teacher said about something out of his area of expertise.

4. If you're too lazy to actually look at what we're talking about, go fuck yourself with a rake and GFTO the thread.

BOOM. Still got it, baby.

The problem with the US system is mostly about the customers. You see it is just like 3G or anything. We want to pay 1 price and have unlimited use but we make absolutely no attempt to reasonably ration our use. So the companies have no reason to want to deliver a faster connection because people are mostly unwilling to pay for it and it would just increase the load on their servers and not result in added profits. Back in the day when I was a young one we used to compress everything we emailed or sent because many people paid by band width. We did not just download a movie because it was free and we might use it some day. Alot of other countries still operate like this. But right now what people do is they want to pay 1 low price for unlimited use and then they want to use the shit out of it. ISPs and carriers have to deal with it because if they said you have to pay for a certain amount everyone jumps ship to the guy who says unlimited.

I know I am in the minority but I would much rather pay for use. IE a set reasonable price per GB plus administrative fees. So like 10$ per month plus 50 cents per GB. Then the companies would be encouraged to increase the speed of the connection because it would get people to use more and cause them to profit more. And people would think about how they are using the internet they would not just download all kinds of junk they will never watch or listen to. If you wanted to you could run a server right out of your house. The only penalty to you would be increased costs.

Also net neutrality is a complicated subject. It will never be entirely neutral I think in my pay per bandwidth system it would be less of an issue. You would have less file sharers clogging up the pipes because it would costs them to do so and may not be worth it. And even if they were they would be paying for their share. I believe that ideally every packet should be sent through in the order received. But some packets really are not as important as others. For instance a bit torrent of a movie that is being downloaded overnight is not as important as a packet going to a HL2DM server. Also a major virus break out can bog down things and I really see no reason why spam emails from zombie machines should not be moved to the back of the list and even blocked.

In the end it is the customer not the ISPs or governments that really controls the system. The average American has no clue what connection speed they have, they have no clue what they would do with a faster speed, and the only thing they really care about is getting on the internet for a fixed costs. Until the customer demands more it will not be delivered.

People who should know better want to be free, free like the wind, totally free, with no limits> They want to to download free stuff and to be free of copyright law. They want freedom to view porn.

They want that freedom to come by way of turning over more power to the Federal Government to come in and fully regulate (and tax is next) the internet.
More freedom by way of more Gubbmint!

Yayyyyy.
If you studied Europe, maybe you also study the VAT.
And the price of internet.

And then study the formula: More Gubbmint + More Regulation = More Freedom.
Please explain this formula. Study it.
Does it look right to you?
If it does, maybe another country is a better fit for you.

It's just like leftists to find fault in something amazing that works so well, like the internet.
Find a few anecdotal incidents.
Start up the demagoguery, demonize business, throw in some fear mongering and exaggeration.
And then call for the Federal Gubbmint to help.

OR, maybe try a RIGHT WING approach, one that is tried and true and works like a charm: Competition and limited competent regulation.

This Leftist Equality stuff goes to far.
It is now that every institution and system is under assault by some whiner calling for the Gubbmint to step in.

Maybe i'm harsh in my rhetoric, and maybe i sound judgmental, but the truth is, i have decades more experience in watching and paying attention to things and find myself BEHOLDEN to say STOP AND THINK.
I'm not here to insult or judge. I'm saying this shit is important and slow down before you call in the Feds.
You never get rid of them once they come through the door.

Fearsome* wrote: I know I am in the minority but I would much rather pay for use. IE a set reasonable price per GB plus administrative fees. So like 10$ per month plus 50 cents per GB. Then the companies would be encouraged to increase the speed of the connection because it would get people to use more and cause them to profit more. And people would think about how they are using the internet they would not just download all kinds of junk they will never watch or listen to. If you wanted to you could run a server right out of your house. The only penalty to you would be increased costs.

You think the solution to our free falling broadband crisis is to impose more fees? Our ISP companies far eclipse in profit any of the ISP's who provide coverage for France, or for Mexico and yet they lead us...In Japan where the internet is not only far cheaper but their ISP companies make far less then we do have 32x the internet speed we have. There is a lack of company competition out there because of imposing monopolistic contracts written by the big four Comcast/AT+T/Time Warner/Verizon to limit competition.

Our ISP's have the money to do a serious systemic overhaul to modernize our broadband system, why isnt it being done already?

Va|iums wrote: You think the solution to our free falling broadband crisis is to impose more fees? Our ISP companies far eclipse in profit any of the ISP's who provide coverage for France, or for Mexico and yet they lead us...In Japan where the internet is not only far cheaper but their ISP companies make far less then we do have 32x the internet speed we have. There is a lack of company competition out there because of imposing monopolistic contracts written by the big four Comcast/AT+T/Time Warner/Verizon to limit competition.

Our ISP's have the money to do a serious systemic overhaul to modernize our broadband system, why isnt it being done already?

yes I do think it would solve many problems though not all. People would pay for what they get where as now what happens is everyone pretty much pays the same rate but different people use very different amounts of the service. And the service itself varries heavily depending on what time of day or the load on the network is. Let me ask you this have you ever had a great meal at a buffet? I have not, if you give everyone a 1 price fits all service you can bet the service will be something less than great. Most of the people do not notice if they are only doing face book but they are in fact paying way more than they should to subsidize the costs of the file monger next door. Also have you checked your stats if you used my pricing plan above most of you would probably be paying less than you currently pay. It is all about motivation but in the end the customers define the motivation as they have the end say in how they shop. I run a business so I know there are lots of times I feel I need to charge more to stay afloat for a product but the customers do not seem to respond well. But then I charge way to much for another item and the customers do not seem to care. The psychology of people is jacked up unfortunately nothing will ever change that. Take cell phone companies, most customers are not willing to pay a reasonable rate per minute instead they have all turned to a jacked up system where they give you X amount free and then rape you for over charges and texts. Why is it that customers have chosen this system over a simple pay per minute system?

Also as for comparisons forget it. Every different country has a different system because they have different needs. People often cite countries like japan, korea and sweeden. But each of those countries is only the size of 1 of our states. And in all cases the population is heavily concentrated in the cities. If you go into US cities that are dense they have much better internet than the average rates cited. We are more spread out and so it costs more. Not only that but we are simply a much bigger country a small country like that can upgrade faster or layout a new system because it simply costs them orders of magnitude less and takes less time and organization.

There is one thing we could do to help the problem with out a pay structure change or any net neutrality. We could tell the government to get out and stop sanctioning monopolies. Out side of very big or tech savy cities there is usually only 1 major provider in the form of a cable company which has a license others will ask to build and will be denied. So simply allowing more competition in would help. They need to force the cable companies to share lines like they did with the long distance companies before. The major problem is actually the government is so slow to either change the system or get out of the way. They figured out they had to fix it with the ATT phone monopoly but no one out there is talking about the fact that Cable is the fastest option in most areas and in those areas the cable company usually has a monopoly that the government allows to exist by not allowing other companies to build out lines or use the existing lines.

I am certainly glad Fearsome brought up the size of the US. Comparisons to Denmark, Japan...are foolish.

"You think the solution to our free falling broadband crisis is to impose more fees? Our ISP companies far eclipse in profit any of the ISP's who provide coverage for France, or for Mexico and yet they lead us...In Japan where the internet is not only far cheaper but their ISP companies make far less then we do have 32x the internet speed we have. There is a lack of company competition out there because of imposing monopolistic contracts written by the big four Comcast/AT+T/Time Warner/Verizon to limit competition.

Our ISP's have the money to do a serious systemic overhaul to modernize our broadband system, why isnt it being done already?"

-What free falling broadband crisis!??! From where does this come. There is a CRISIS in US Broadband?
I don't think so. I don't see any crisis. I haven't seen any reporting of any crisis nor evidence of any crisis.
-When you say far eclipse in profits, what do you mean?! How do you know this? If they have huge amounts of excess bandwidth, i should say they SHOULD make less profit. And if Comcast is 4 times bigger, 4 times the profits is a one to one comparison on scale.
-They lead us? Lead us in what? Lower price per unit of bandwidth? Quality? Coverage? Reliability?
-ISPs don't write monopolistic contracts. The State and local Gubbmints do that. True monopolies only happen when the gubbmint allows it or there is an illegal trust. Are you saying the major ISPs are trusts? Funny, in VA Beach, you can sign up with Verizon, or Cox, and three different satellite companies and number of Dial-up companies. There is no monopoly on Internet service.
-You have a problem with PROFITS. For some reason, you believe profits are your business. There are not.
There isn't another remotely comparable successful motivator for creation and success than profit.
Profits make growth, wealth, create technology, and filter down to the people.
Your leftism is showing.

Va|iums wrote:
Our ISP's have the money to do a serious systemic overhaul to modernize our broadband system, why isnt it being done already?

I believe it is called Greed.

The same can be said of many U.S. companies. Too many of them put thier profits in their pockets and pay their C.E.O.s huge bonuses instead of investing in R&D and newer technologies until some foreign company does it and starts to take over thier market share. Example: U.S. vs Japanese car companies and the development of feul efficient cars. It took gas going to almost $5 a gallon (admittedly still less than many other countries) in the U.S., and people buying Toyotas and Hondas to get the U.S. companies to get off their ass and make a real feul efficient car, not a pseudo efficient car.

Another example: Outboard engines for boats. Foreign makers were the first to make 4 stroke outboards while U.S. manufacterers continued to make the dirtier, less feul efficient, noiser 2 strokes. Years ago, U.S. made engines, such as Johnson were once great products but due to the lack of innovation and in the name of profit, the became cheaply made and with horrible record for breakdowns.

Fearsome* wrote:

Va|iums wrote: There is one thing we could do to help the problem with out a pay structure change or any net neutrality. We could tell the government to get out and stop sanctioning monopolies. Out side of very big or tech savy cities there is usually only 1 major provider in the form of a cable company which has a license others will ask to build and will be denied. So simply allowing more competition in would help. They need to force the cable companies to share lines like they did with the long distance companies before. The major problem is actually the government is so slow to either change the system or get out of the way. They figured out they had to fix it with the ATT phone monopoly but no one out there is talking about the fact that Cable is the fastest option in most areas and in those areas the cable company usually has a monopoly that the government allows to exist by not allowing other companies to build out lines or use the existing lines.

Hey everything you said rang true, free competition is what is needed and is sorely missing. I don't think you guys understand the power of contracting, and how lawyered up these 4 ISP kings are, they have the power to not let in a newer company in a 100 mile radius of a city if they wanted with their dazzling and complex contracts done by the best legal minds in America...

I feel as if some people are only viewing the internet in commercial terms. It needs to seen as much more than that. Yes, deregulation in the UK for instance allowed private interests to offer much more in terms of competitive pricing and service, but it has been the government who has been driving the push for technology including the internet and digital tv. Lets remind ourselves of the recent debate on phorm (based on clean feed) technology proposed by BT where it tracks all your browsing and stores it! . It works by connecting directly into your ISP’s network, intercepting communications between you and the sites you visit, to check which things you are looking at. like a private version of echelon! the other side of the coin in Russia (as China has already been mentioned), where:

A new official has recently appeared in the presidential administration. His main function is to keep his finger on the pulse of the Russian internet, by monitoring everything that appears in electronic publications and popular blogs. The idea for this post probably came from the President himself. As an active internet user, he must realize that he can’t keep track of everything that happens on the net. But he would like to – and, what’s more, to control it.

for me, a mixed economy is perfectly acceptable if net neutrality which is an idealogical concept rather than a reality cannot be achieved...over and out .

I pick up the Virginian Pilot today and there is a big article about Verizon FIOS.

Cox is a local cable provider that reaches most all the Hamptons Roads cities.
Virginia State law REQUIRES that no provider get a better contract on local municipalities right of way to establish laying networks.
Verizon has spent 24 billion on FIOS since 2004.
They are required to reach a certain amount of households in each city based on density.
Verizon has balked at some arrangements because it is offered the same deal as Cox.
Meaning, they get the same deal to lay FIOS, a much improved tech over Cox's older cable system.

Lawyers at Major ISPs do not make the rules. The Federal, State and local gubbmint make the rules. ISPs negotiate but are beholden to local law.
This stuff about high powered lawyers at ISPs is nonsense. It is a complete distortion of how business takes place.

So, I see that Verizon has spent 24 Billion dollars since 2004 implementing Fiber Optics.
This flies directly counter to Valiums assertions about spending profits to improve systems.
Amazing!

I also see that local/state law dictates terms of contracts for right of way.
And to wire England or Japan isn't quite as daunting as wiring the United States.
America is bigger than all of Europe and more.

Yeah I have to agree with Impala on the Fios thing. Verizon did put some bucks into it to develop it. I just wish I could get it where I am . That said, I have to wonder though that if not for the cable companies having faster internet over regular DSL, if Verizon would have spent the money in the first place. As I alluded to in my last post, competition does force companies to innovate or they get left in the dust. Not sure how much it has helped Verizon though because most people seem to have cable instead of Fios, at least around here where both Fios and cable is available. Where Fios is not available, everyone (except me) has cable.

If there is competition, business will innovative to top a competitor and increase profits.
Where there is no competition, you can depend on a lack of innovation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kn_GqbX ... eature=sub

Here's some more info on the matter from a trustworthy and relevant source.