|
i dont deny the ladies access to my dilz thats for sure!
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Shaggar posted:no ones denying anyone access to anything thats not what the internet says
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
denying everyone access to the internet might be best tbh
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:actually im pretty sure they pay their bills but traffic prioritization is kind of a janky idea unless it's your own private intranet basically it's only a bad idea in the same way forcing people to pay progressive taxes is a bad idea it's only opposed by people who stand to profit on top of already obscene profits
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
theadder posted:denying everyone access to the internet might be best tbh
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
nationalize all cable/fiber
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:nationalize all cable/fiber
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:nationalize all cable/fiber give it to usps who should also be your local public bank
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:give it to usps who should also be your local public bank also have them handle email
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:nationalize all cable/fiber
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:give it to usps who should also be your local public bank also stop trying to gently caress them over fiscally by having to over fund pensions
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:like Comcast, for instance no mostly like google and netflix and the like they use a vastly larger share of resources and should be forced to pay accordingly comcast really doesn't enter into the equation, they're going to profit one way or another, it's just whether or not you're willing to subsidize google's ever-growing slice of the pie
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
A Wheezy Steampunk posted:this isn't going to work because politicians are patient and capable of playing the long game and everyone who uses the internet has no long term memory no one is planning anti-net neutrality stuff and it has never been anywhere close to passing. why do you idiots still think this zen death robot posted:
they absolutely are not
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:39
|
|
Comcast is pushing really hard for it
|
here is what I dont get about net neutrality: company pays peer to host service == ok company pays ISP to host service == OMG PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
should have made the pages load like this for protesting:
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
honestly i dont care anymore. net neutrality is a good thing and people who are opposed to it are bad corporations. but also all the people super in favor of net neutrality are terrible and i'm just done caring. if the internet gets bad i'll be very happy to go back to books. i'll feel bad for the poors but they dont have ineternet now anyway
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
      
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
MALE SHOEGAZE posted:honestly i dont care anymore. net neutrality is a good thing and people who are opposed to it are bad corporations. but also all the people super in favor of net neutrality are terrible and i'm just done caring. if the internet gets bad i'll be very happy to go back to books. i'll feel bad for the poors but they dont have ineternet now anyway no major corporations are opposed to net neutrality
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
it's funny how many people are angry about companies paying for better access as if its in any way new. internet companies have been doing it since the mid 90s, with microsoft being the first truly major player when they got direct links and local mirrors set up to ensure windows update went at full speed in the late 90s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:give it to usps who should also be your local public bank NZ post office used to be a bank and own all the telephone. must have been salad days
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
this is not comcast opposing net neutrality
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:network prioritization is bad, in general, for everyone network prioritization is good and has existed for over 20 years. it's called buying your own links and paying for in-network hosting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
except when you want your Skype call to not cut In and out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:correct, on your own network it's totally fine they don't have any plans to actually institute prioritization tiers since they already have everyone they'd charge for them payign them money for direct links and in network hosting. they make up the revenue from people not buying cable by a) owning a major tv and movie producer b) through that being partners with many popular online video streaming sites and c) from all that getting massive amounts of ad revenue and royalties whether people are watching on broadcast tv, on cable, or through hulu or even youtube (official channels of course) like do you not get that. something like a quarter of netflix's content is licensed from comcast universal now. comcast gets paid when anyone on any network wants to stream any of that, effectively.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:they don't have any plans to actually institute prioritization tiers lol if you actually believe this
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:lol if you actually believe this
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
wikipedia doesnt 'believe' stuff
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
someone tried to explain to me why net neutrality is bad and i think my head nearly exploded i guess someone is getting internet they didn't pay for because they paid someone else instead that they also didn't pay for? cause that sounds pretty good, where do i sign up to get free poo poo funny thing is i don't hear anyone bitching about cell carriers not counting certain streaming sites against your data allotment, which sure sounds like not being neutral to me. sure they don't prioritize the data but they still promote one site over another
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
I'm a ok with no net neutrality as long as speeds don't decrease. if it's doing what Microsoft is doing and shifting their update servers physically into the same space as the network provider, that's only going to speed it up. It doesn't necessitate slowing other things down. Thats fine, company wants to pay for a better product? company can pay for a better product. what I won't accept is the intentional bottle necking of bandwidth to customers of certain websites in order to 'coax' said companies to buy internal rack space. That poo poo is anti competitive and brings up a whole host of issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:what I won't accept is the intentional bottle necking of bandwidth to customers of certain websites in order to 'coax' said companies to buy internal rack space. That poo poo is anti competitive and brings up a whole host of issues. lol if you think it will be anything but this the lesson here is that nothing comes between an MBA and the money they think they deserve
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
man who gives a poo poo theres not a single person that wouldnt pay more for a nonshitty internet, especially in the net hellhole thats called america
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
every time I think im close to figuring this out shaggar or stymie says something and im like welp back to start
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Cat Face Joe posted:every time I think im close to figuring this out shaggar or stymie says something and im like welp back to start "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." --H.L. Mencken 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Cat Face Joe posted:every time I think im close to figuring this out shaggar or stymie says something and im like welp back to start it's basically: - the internet is a series of networks, that are all interconnected - ISPs own their own networks - if content is on your own network, it's faster, due to the design of the internet - ISPs are happy to let people pay to put stuff on the ISPs' networks - net neutrality advocates (the companies) don't want to have to pay - net neutrality advocates (the people) think that ISPs are going to make the internet into a tiered cable TV-like package, due to the companies in the previous point
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:- net neutrality advocates (the people) think that ISPs are going to make the internet into a tiered cable TV-like package, due to the companies in the previous point and it just happens that language that opposes that would allow these fuckers who aren't paying to host their data where it's actually used to keep not paying, so they're trumping up fears of the tiered internet scenario? is that about the size of it? cause holy gently caress i thought comcast were evil geniuses but thats some masterstroke poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
CrashCat posted:so they're not actually asking for that because nobody would be insane enough to agree, but if the language ends up getting worked out in a way that allows it, we're supposed to trust that they won't? yeah, because the internet doesn't work that way like, from the isp perspective all they really care about is the path and quantity of the data, not which company is using that path. that's why right now you're seeing fights between peering companies and ISPs instead of companies (the one exception being netflix but they're quietly solving that with direct peering and their amount of data is incredible) the other major difference is that tv studios are much more...centralized, for lack of a better term, while the internet is not like, the top 10 tv stations are owned by probably 2-3 companies (and a lot of the other ones are owned by these same companies), whereas the top 10 websites are owned by vastly different corporations, some of which aren't even on the same continent (baidu and qq, specifically). even if you just limit it to english language websites, there's enough disparity that it's really hard to lockdown the content, and if some website suddenly blows up you have to scramble to renegotiate everything basically the internet is a chaotic mess and it probably will be for at least the near future
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:
in much the same way that charging taxes on walmart to have a store in your city limits is double dipping since they already have a store they're paying taxes on in the city down the road
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
all transmission lines must be nationalized http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/17/how-chattanooga-beat-google-fiber-by-half-a-decade/ (and all nobles must hang)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:You do know the new "2014 Net Neutrality" FCC Proposal allows for prioritization, right? and the prioritization means allowed are the exact same things that have already been allowed and in use for the past 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
pooning newbs as usual from my posting throne
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:05
|
|