Register | Login | |||||
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
| |
0 users currently in General Chat. |
User | Post | ||||||||
Tarale Posts: 1311/2713 |
Personally, I like my internet the way it is.
Currently, when I sign up for an ISP in Australia, I'm paying for internet access. That's it -- I'm not paying for a specific content (although I do get some lovely free mirrored traffic depending on ISP's), I'm not paying to use a specific VoIP solution, I'm just paying for internet access. With that internet access, I can do whatever the fuck I like, and it's not going to cost me more or less, be prioritised higher or lower, or whatever. I can browse whatever website I like, I can use whatever VoIP service I like, I can torrent, I can play whatever games I like and visit whatever IRC channel I wish, it's all the same as far as my connection is concerned. At the moment, the way some of these things have been proposed, I don't see any great benefits that are worth losing the current freedom I have with regards to the internet. I like my freedom and I like my choice. I don't want my ISP to discriminate against anything. | ||||||||
Jilkon Posts: 122/227 |
The real question would be if this would affect anyone else (say, me), other than make certain dumb politicians over here think it's the right thing to do. I think I signed that page long ago.
"Telecom lobbyist Mike McCurry recently warned that net neutrality laws "will dampen investor interest in building bigger, faster, smarter pipes," which he argues will ultimately lead to an Internet slowdown." Yeah.. because we totally don't have cheapass 100mbit available to lots of people in Sweden . Liars~. | ||||||||
Shadic Posts: 226/528 |
Originally posted by Alastor the Stylish Originally posted by wikipedia Originally posted by ||bass Well then, this message board that you act as an Admin for may suddenly become inaccessable to a certain group of members, just because their ISPs feel like you should be paying them. Face it, some things NEED to be regulated. Those who get power do not want to give it up, same with money. They could do all they want for pure profits without government regulation. Customer service? Who needs it if you're a monopoly. | ||||||||
emcee Posts: 461/867 |
Originally posted by Can you cite a source? All I've seen, they state just the opposite. | ||||||||
||bass Posts: 315/594 |
I'm against anything that interferes with letting buisness alone. The government's job is not to play mommy and daddy for the net. Read the wiki article on net neutraility. Most of the arguements AGAINST net neutrality are more convincing than the ones in favor. | ||||||||
Alastor Posts: 6221/8204 |
What the hell is with this television analogy. Do you people have even the slightest idea just how different the systems are? It's. Gah. | ||||||||
Ailure Posts: 1553/2602 |
Originally posted by TaraleHeh, but this is becuse this is in Google's disfavor obviously, but then I guess it's good PR. I'm for net neutraility too and blah. :/ I wish politicans would be the opposite, encourage small businesses instaed of the really huge ones. | ||||||||
Xkeeper Posts: 2339/5653 |
Originally posted by emcee How? Telco companies (I'm looking at you, AT&T) have actually, very bluntly stated that they plan to do exactly what savetheinternet.com thinks they're going to do. I'm not seeing any "bias speculation" here... | ||||||||
emcee Posts: 457/867 |
As I said, I'm all for the idea of net neutrality. But this "Save the Internet" site bases its argument on bias speculation, rather than focusing on the real issues, which make it no better than the telecom industry's "Hands Off My Internet" propaganda site. | ||||||||
Xeo Belmont Posts: 230/1016 |
Simply put the Internet is a free medium that should not be overcontrolled by some form of government / organization whatsoever.
It just shouldn't happen. | ||||||||
Rom Manic Posts: 203/557 |
I think it would work exactly like TV does. If you can't pay the broadcasting company to put your channel/show on the TV, then no TV show.
But you are right, the Internet should never operate like that. It's one of the only widely availiable social mediums we have left that have real freedom. | ||||||||
emcee Posts: 456/867 |
Originally posted by Shadic See, this is what I mean. You're complaining about things that aren't even happening. Yes, if the internet became like TV, it would be hard get things on it. But who said it was going to become like TV? That's just speculation. There's enough perfectly good reasons to support net neutrality, without making up new ones. | ||||||||
Tarale Posts: 1292/2713 |
I think Google has been making some threats recently in regards to this. I'm sure I can find a story if I look...
Google to Congress: we will not tolerate net abuse. | ||||||||
craig3410 Posts: 26/119 |
Originally posted by Shadic Welcome to the US, where the opinions of a hundred million average people << 1 rich CEO. | ||||||||
Shadic Posts: 213/528 |
Originally posted by emcee The thing is, we don't want the internet to become just another form of media along with television. You say the biggest problems are hypothetical, but you've got to realise that it's the same matter of how another thing runs. Try getting something on TV that isn't your local broadcast channel, it's not going to be easy. Even if you get it there, the chances of a real audience are close to nothing. The internet doesn't work like that. It's not supposed to. | ||||||||
emcee Posts: 452/867 |
I seems like John Kerry's talking about two seperate issues in that letter, net neutrality and selectively servicing areas. I guess there may be two issues covered by one bill (I hate that).
As far as that "Save the Internet" site goes, although I agree with the idea of net neutrality, they seem to be agruing the case for it in a very biased way. They spend way too much time pushing hypothetical situations like ISPs purposely blocking or slowing down competing services. When the real issue is just ISP's desire to charge extra fee's to content providers and VOIP carriers to use more of the "last mile" bandwidth. Since bandwidth isn't infinate, this would likely lead to other site running slower. I think this is enough reason to support net neutrality, without worrying about mere possibilities when there's proof that they're actually going to happen. | ||||||||
Rom Manic Posts: 198/557 |
|