Internet Neutrality?

[Darksage]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/congress-casting-vote-on-_b_19793.html

That's disturbing.

Agree or disagree?

[Yusayoh]

I don't quite understand. Can you help?

[Darksage]

The internet has been "neutral" since it came out. Your service provider doesn't control whatt sites you can go to or which sites will load faster than others. If that bill were to pass your service provider could block you froom visiting sertain sites. For example if you have verizon and verizon strikes anagreement with amazon.com, you'd never be able to visit another online store, but amazon would load strikingly fast.
You could also have DSL or broadband but only your provider's 'favorite' websites would load fast and everything else would load at dial up speed (like 28 or 56k)

[Yusayoh]

That...is...pure...dumbass.
Why would you want a bill like that? That's like parental controls...without the parent. I don't mind some sites loading a bit faster than others but sites that won't load period? That's bullshit. People won't buy that ISP then maybe.

[Alister]

If that was initiated, everyone would go private and major ISPs would go out of business.

[CK]

So this is there atempt at a censored internet....
hmm doubt it will work

Think about it this way they can control what we see...sounds like what fcc did to radio and tv

[Yusayoh]

Side-note: Have you heard of Internet 2?

[CK]

Yea i think its a hoax

[Darksage]

I haven't. what is it?

[Alister]

Its what many colleges and universities are currently using. It is VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY fast internet (you can tell from how many very's I used), in short.

[CK]

No i think there refering to web 2.0

[Alister]

Web 2.0 being...?

[brandon]

ive heard of this internet

it can download an entire movie in something like 4 seconds

its insane

[FinalDragoon]

Am I the only one who sees this as getting a step closer to communism?

I'm just waiting for the violence.

[Darksage]

It's letting the businesses control it. Quite the opposite.

[FinalDragoon]

Communist China does the same thing. Business and Internet have their regulations.

Honestly, go to China - get on Google and look up anything that makes their government look bad.

[Darksage]

That's just government regulations, dictatorship not communism. China has more capitalism that communism now, they just dont give freedom of speech, especially out against the government.


All it's going to do is favor the buusinesses and not the consumers. Although, I don't see how some of it is constitutional.

[brandon]

i belive that this new internet was created for military purposes, kind of like the same reason why the original internet was invented
some college kids were using it and they got arrested, it was on the news like 6 months ago

[gakekuroi]

id kill someone if that happened or just some how go private probably could afford it:)

[gsv]

The internet has been "neutral" since it came out. Your service provider doesn't control whatt sites you can go to or which sites will load faster than others. If that bill were to pass your service provider could block you froom visiting sertain sites. For example if you have verizon and verizon strikes anagreement with amazon.com, you'd never be able to visit another online store, but amazon would load strikingly fast.
You could also have DSL or broadband but only your provider's 'favorite' websites would load fast and everything else would load at dial up speed (like 28 or 56k)
Uhh...I don't think that's what the article is describing >_>;;

Basically ISPs do what's called peering with eachother. this is basically the exchange of packets/data at key points throughout the world. This is generally done at no cost to each provider except for the equipment (router, etc.) needed to link up the networks. If ISP A peers with the ISP you are using, then you will probably get faster access to ISP A, but that doesn't mean everything is going to be slower. That would just be plain bullshit and actually is quite hard to implement.

[Darksage]

Uhh...I don't think that's what the article is describing >_>;;

Basically ISPs do what's called peering with eachother. this is basically the exchange of packets/data at key points throughout the world. This is generally done at no cost to each provider except for the equipment (router, etc.) needed to link up the networks. If ISP A peers with the ISP you are using, then you will probably get faster access to ISP A, but that doesn't mean everything is going to be slower. That would just be plain bullshit and actually is quite hard to implement.

Please, learn more as to what you are talking about, rather than saying what you 'think' is correct.
Oh. I read that off another forum and just copy/pasted, along with the thread XD

My bad.

[gsv]

Oh. I read that off another forum and just copy/pasted, along with the thread XD

My bad.
;)

and that's why you don't copy + paste.

[Darksage]

uhm: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/congress-casting-vote-on-_b_19793.html

[gsv]

uhm: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/congress-casting-vote-on-_b_19793.html
Yes. That's basically what I said. Some sites will load uber fast, others will load the same . . .

If anything that's 'better' for the end-user as they get faster access to say iTunes (I'd imagine)...but bad for website owners competing with a site that has a good relationship with that particular ISP.

It's really not a good way of doing things though.

[byakugan]

so two years later and we are still having this discussion....xaeroevo posted this earlier a

http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality2

and i have seen other ones such as this pop up recently again for some reason.....what is the deal...privatize the internet into a tiered package system by 2012?




btw...in the video the girls shirt choice is excellent

[Oblivious]

Dang, this thread is really old.

Anyhow, I agree that this is quite disturbing due to the fact that some sites might possibly run very slow.