Net Neutrality Defeated

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Fantasy » alt.fan.dragons » Net Neutrality Defeated

Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279829]

Fr, 09 Juni 2006 07:25

Draco18s

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html?part=rss&ta g=6081882&subj=news

Subject says it all.
Stick your head between your knees and kiss your tail good-by (almost).
A moment of silence for the internet that was and to remember it in its glory.

Re: Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279843 ]

Fr, 09 Juni 2006 21:55

Al Phi

Draco18s wrote:
> http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html?part=rss&ta g=6081882&subj=news
>
> Subject says it all.
> Stick your head between your knees and kiss your tail good-by (almost).
> A moment of silence for the internet that was and to remember it in its glory.

It's the end of the Internet as we know it.... just hopefully we don't
have to start using dial-up Bulletin Boards and Usenet servers again.

--
Al Phi

Re: Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279844 ]

Fr, 09 Juni 2006 23:25

Dreamseeker

Draco18s wrote:
> http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html?part=rss&ta g=6081882&subj=news
>
> Subject says it all.
> Stick your head between your knees and kiss your tail good-by (almost).
> A moment of silence for the internet that was and to remember it in its glory.

What... exactly... does that mean? I think I understand, but that
article confuses me just a little. Spell it out for me, please?

-- Dreamseeker

Re: Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279845 ]

Fr, 09 Juni 2006 23:36

darkside

"Al Phi" <drak0l8er [at] gmail.com> writes:

> It's the end of the Internet as we know it.... just hopefully we don't
> have to start using dial-up Bulletin Boards and Usenet servers again.

Will if I have to... I suppose all that "longing for the good ole days"
might come back to bite me pretty hard :P

--
darkside

DC2.Da G"two-spirit" L W-- T- Phvlwlt Sks,wl Cwl,pu B- A(rv+++)
Fr^++"pomegranate" Nw M+++! O H-- $ Fv R++ Ac~ J++ S- U I--# V+
Q+ Tc+++![sw] E++

Homepage: http://silenceisdefeat.org/~darkside
Email: darksidex at charter dot net

Re: Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279846 ]

Sa, 10 Juni 2006 01:05

Al Phi

Re: Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279847 ]

Sa, 10 Juni 2006 01:11

Al Phi

darkside wrote:
> "Al Phi" <drak0l8er [at] gmail.com> writes:
>
> > It's the end of the Internet as we know it.... just hopefully we don't
> > have to start using dial-up Bulletin Boards and Usenet servers again.
>
> Will if I have to... I suppose all that "longing for the good ole days"
> might come back to bite me pretty hard :P

It could indeed come back to bite all aware victims. I don't think
those who are ignorant to these events would even be bothered.

"Gimme on the Internet!", in the words of my young brother. And also,
"Ooo... That's Firefox, I need AOL!"

As for an alternate global network if things get too bad, I doubt it
would work. Sure, it's possible. But what stops another company from
just limiting access? And, will the new network even be accepted by
parents, etc? Big companies would pressure parents and school admins
that this/these new network(s) are unsafe, for pornography, for
hackers, and can give your computer viruses... and that theirs are
protected from all the dangers of chat rooms and Peer to Peer.

As an aside, isn't peer to peer (p2p) the very basis of the Internet?

--
Al Phi

Re: Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279852 ]

Sa, 10 Juni 2006 02:27

Lord Flame Stryke

On 09 Jun 2006, Al Phi was found to have scratched this message on a
rock in alt.fan.dragons:

> Draco18s wrote:
>> http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html?part=rss&ta g=6081882&subj
>> =news
>> Subject says it all.
>> Stick your head between your knees and kiss your tail good-by
>> (almost). A moment of silence for the internet that was and to
>> remember it in its glory.
> It's the end of the Internet as we know it.... just hopefully we don't
> have to start using dial-up Bulletin Boards and Usenet servers again.

I'd say this is only for Americans, but eventually they'll try to push it
on other countries, too.....

Lord Flame Stryke

--
DC2.D~ Gm L120f60t180w W T Phawlt Sks Cbk,ere' Bfl A+++! Fr++ Nm M+ O H+ $
Fc~ R+++! Ac+++ J+ S++ U! I# V+++! Q Tc++ E++
Draco nigrum, oculi rubere, suppositus, magus.
Holder of the Scroll of Nobility from Lady Viriatha, Keeper of the Wand of
Sparklies in its case from Hex, Wielder of the Lady Viri Signature 4x8 from
Ysable, Eater of the Mint Cheesecake from Whisper, Mate to Lady Viriatha,
Owner of Flame Stryke's Windex® Factory, Lord Balloonmaker, Borrower of the
Ebony Wood Fife from Luxatos, Accepter of the Small Statue of a Green
Dragon Covered in Ice Cream Toppings from Juniper, Employer of a miniature
Jester doll from SeaKing, Bearer of the Magic Ever-Bill from SeaKing,
Carrier of the gold piece from whisper: o, Builder of Dragon Fyre Keep,
First Dragon of Realism, Giver of the Pickaxe of Icebreaking to Kalos,
Winner of the *shiny* riddle award from Pegasus

--
(1) Alexander the Great was a great general. (2) Great generals are
forewarned. (3) Forewarned is forearmed. (4) Four is an even number. (5)
Four is certainly an odd number of arms for a man to have. (6) The only
number that is both even and odd is infinity. Therefore, all horses are
black. -- Herd Thinners

Re: Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279853 ]

Sa, 10 Juni 2006 02:53

Draco18s

In article <1149888300.620824.119110 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
LadyAmberEvylyn [at] hotmail.com says...
>
>Draco18s wrote:
>> http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6081882.html?part=rss&ta g=6081882&subj=news
>>
>> Subject says it all.
>> Stick your head between your knees and kiss your tail good-by (almost).
>> A moment of silence for the internet that was and to remember it in its glory.
>
>
>What... exactly... does that mean? I think I understand, but that
>article confuses me just a little. Spell it out for me, please?

Means that ISPs can charge individual websites/companies "some extra money" in
order for their content to be delivered to the client at high speed.
At the same time they can charge the client "some extra money" to have access
to "some content at higher speeds than their current connection" (that is, able
to get the content of compainies that pay the fee at higher-than-broadband
speeds for a "nominal fee").
What does this mean for the people and sites that don't pay?
Well...
1) Competing companies to the ISP will have their content delivered at
restricted speeds regardless of connection
2) Overall speed boost gained for some content means that in order to maintain
bandwith....everyone else slows down
3) ISPs can block certain websites by content and/or ownership (such as our
lovely yiff sites we all go to and publically deny or any other otherkin site
because of religious gounds).
4) New start-up .com businesses will be out-performed by the existing sites
because the new site doesn't have the money to pay the "high speed fee."
5) Non-profit sites could be discriminated because they can't pay the fee.
6) Fee amount would have no standard. Might be 1,000,000 for Google but 10,000
for Amazon.
Also, 7) Fee would have no limit, we might end up paying $35-$45 for DIAL UP.

Re: Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279854 ]

Sa, 10 Juni 2006 03:39

Dreamseeker

> 1) Competing companies to the ISP will have their content delivered at
> restricted speeds regardless of connection
> 2) Overall speed boost gained for some content means that in order to maintain
> bandwith....everyone else slows down
> 3) ISPs can block certain websites by content and/or ownership (such as our
> lovely yiff sites we all go to and publically deny or any other otherkin site
> because of religious gounds).
> 4) New start-up .com businesses will be out-performed by the existing sites
> because the new site doesn't have the money to pay the "high speed fee."
> 5) Non-profit sites could be discriminated because they can't pay the fee.
> 6) Fee amount would have no standard. Might be 1,000,000 for Google but 10,000
> for Amazon.
> Also, 7) Fee would have no limit, we might end up paying $35-$45 for DIAL UP.

Well... Hell. That just defeats the true purpose of the internet,
doesn't it? The optimist in me says 'just wait it out; surely enough
people will notice and be against these changes that one way or another
it will be changed back'... but, damn. Damn and a whole lot of other
words that I don't usually say.
Meanwhile, the nymphomaniac in me isn't sure whether the optimist is
right or not. All she says is, 'don't take away my precious yiff
sites!!!'
Surprisingly, that other aspect of my personality that's sort of like
cynicism agrees with optimist, saying, 'if they keep adding more
constraints to our lives and our so-called freedom like this,
eventually the camel's back will break.'

--
Dreamseeker

Bearer of one Ponder Point from Scott L

DC2.D~ Gf L12f15t30w W- T Phfltvw Sks,wh Cau Bzz A- Fr- Na Mr---Mv-
H++ $
F+Fo R+++ Ac+ J++ S++ U- I V+[weather magic] Q+[empathy] Tc E++

Re: Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279855 ]

Sa, 10 Juni 2006 05:53

darkside

"Al Phi" <drak0l8er [at] gmail.com> writes:

> As an aside, isn't peer to peer (p2p) the very basis of the Internet?

Well... in most interactions, one host acts as a "server" and the other
acts as a "client". peer-to-peer transactions are based on both hosts
taking on server and client responsibilities.

So, host-host is the basis of the Internet. Peer-Peer is a different paradigm.

--
darkside

DC2.Da G"two-spirit" L W-- T- Phvlwlt Sks,wl Cwl,pu B- A(rv+++)
Fr^++"pomegranate" Nw M+++! O H-- $ Fv R++ Ac~ J++ S- U I--# V+
Q+ Tc+++![sw] E++

Homepage: http://silenceisdefeat.org/~darkside
Email: darksidex at charter dot net

Re: Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279863 ]

Sa, 10 Juni 2006 23:51

Draco18s

In article <1149903563.102910.43930 [at] m38g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
LadyAmberEvylyn [at] hotmail.com says...
>> 1) Competing companies to the ISP will have their content delivered at
>> restricted speeds regardless of connection
>> 2) Overall speed boost gained for some content means that in order to maintain
>> bandwith....everyone else slows down
>> 3) ISPs can block certain websites by content and/or ownership (such as our
>> lovely yiff sites we all go to and publically deny or any other otherkin site
>> because of religious gounds).
>> 4) New start-up .com businesses will be out-performed by the existing sites
>> because the new site doesn't have the money to pay the "high speed fee."
>> 5) Non-profit sites could be discriminated because they can't pay the fee.
>> 6) Fee amount would have no standard. Might be 1,000,000 for Google but 10,000
>> for Amazon.
>> Also, 7) Fee would have no limit, we might end up paying $35-$45 for DIAL UP.
>
>
>Well... Hell. That just defeats the true purpose of the internet,
>doesn't it?

Exactly.

>The optimist in me says 'just wait it out; surely enough
>people will notice and be against these changes that one way or another
>it will be changed back'... but, damn. Damn and a whole lot of other
>words that I don't usually say.
>Meanwhile, the nymphomaniac in me isn't sure whether the optimist is
>right or not. All she says is, 'don't take away my precious yiff
>sites!!!'
>Surprisingly, that other aspect of my personality that's sort of like
>cynicism agrees with optimist, saying, 'if they keep adding more
>constraints to our lives and our so-called freedom like this,
>eventually the camel's back will break.'

It might be a while.

Re: Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279864 ]

So, 11 Juni 2006 00:14

Pyros Rutilicus

At Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:53:10 GMT, Draco18s
<draco18s2_DOES_NOT [at] LIKE_SPAM_hotmail.com> hissed:

<chomp>
> What does this mean for the people and sites that don't pay?
> Well...
> 1) Competing companies to the ISP will have their content delivered at
> restricted speeds regardless of connection

If they actually do this, a competing ISP could decide to *not* throttle
competitors' content, start an advertising campaign based on this, and
win customers away.

> 2) Overall speed boost gained for some content means that in order to
> maintain bandwith....everyone else slows down

What do you think the carrier is doing with this extra money? They could
either reduce bandwidth charges for the throttled customers (which would
be fair), build infrastructure to increase the bandwidth maximum (which
would be fair), or pocket it (and lose business to carriers who take one
of the first two options).

> 3) ISPs can block certain websites by content and/or ownership (such
> as our lovely yiff sites we all go to and publically deny or any other
> otherkin site because of religious gounds).

They can already do this. How many do you know of that actually do?

ISPs know (probably better than most) that pornography is endemic to the
Internet, and blocking it in a systematic way would alienate some of
their customers. The only reason they would go through the trouble is if
it makes business sense to do so (e.g. if they're trying to market a
"family-friendly" filtered Internet service--heh, good luck with that).
Quite simply, I don't see this happening.

Ditto blocking any class of site--whether "otherkin," or offensive, or
anything--the instant a major US ISP starts blocking websites, the
bloggers will scream of censorship (conveniently comparing them to the
Chinese government, no matter how accurate or inaccurate the comparison),
then pundits, then more mainstream news will pick up on it, and the
company will face a PR backlash.

> 4) New start-up .com businesses will be out-performed by the existing
> sites because the new site doesn't have the money to pay the "high
> speed fee."

This is a valid concern, but already exists to some extent. Companies
already have to pay for bandwidth.

> 5) Non-profit sites could be discriminated because they
> can't pay the fee.

Like how as a consumer I'm "discriminated against" if I can only pay
$10/mo for dialup instead of $40/mo for broadband? Or if as a website
owner I can only afford to lease an ISDN line instead of a dedicated T3?

> 6) Fee amount would have no standard. Might be
> 1,000,000 for Google but 10,000 for Amazon.

I expect the market would set a standard. I'd rather them set the
standard than the government.

> Also, 7) Fee would have no limit, we might end up paying $35-$45 for
> DIAL UP.

Why? Everyone would switch to a competitor that charged cheaper rates.

One of the biggest proponents of net neutrality is Google. Say for
example that AT&T says to Google, "Pay us $10M to route your traffic
preferentially, otherwise you'll lose to Yahoo who's already signed up
with us." What does Google do?
Keep in mind that any website can look at the IP of a visitor and
determine where they're coming from. So, for example, Google can take
any IP routed by AT&T and display a banner that says "If this site seems
slower than some others, it's because AT&T is throttling our traffic.
Please call this toll-free number to complain directly to AT&T." As a
last resort, they could block access to those IPs completely. For a
smaller site this wouldn't work, but if suddenly none of AT&T's customers
could visit Google or Ebay, you can bet the situation would get resolved
pretty fast.

Basically, there are definitely some concerns for small websites, but
there is also potential. What if I have an idea with high bandwidth
requirements (whether it's video-on-demand, or whatever)? If I can get
the higher QoS, I can have a successful business--but not necessarily
otherwise. (And I'll be sure to explain to the venture capitalists that
the QoS fee is part of the normal bandwidth costs.) Alternatively, what
if I have an idea to provide people with free wireless Internet access,
and my plan for paying for it is to get Internet-based companies (Google,
Amazon, etc.) to sponsor it in exchange for preferential routing of their
traffic through that network? That violates "net neutrality," but would
you oppose it?

There are concerns, but there is also potential--and personally, whenever
a government (/any/ government, but especially the US federal government)
starts talking about new regulations involving the Internet, I become
quite wary.

--
Pyros Rutilicus
---------------
DC2.Dw~ Gm L40f75w W- T- Sks,wl Cre-,eau Bfl A Fr++ Nm R+ Ac++ J+ Tc++ E-
Proud Owner of One Ponder Point
Scales protect many times better than flesh, but ironically, as long as
I wear this flesh I am safe, whereas if I were to show my true self I
would be vulnerable...
"Thoughts of [an annoying human] still make my teeth itch."
--D. J. Heinrich, The Dragon's Tomb

Re: Net Neutrality Defeated [message #279868 ]

So, 11 Juni 2006 02:26

Lord Flame Stryke

On 09 Jun 2006, Dreamseeker was found to have scratched this message on
a rock in alt.fan.dragons:

> Well... Hell. That just defeats the true purpose of the internet,
> doesn't it? The optimist in me says 'just wait it out; surely enough
> people will notice and be against these changes that one way or
> another it will be changed back'... but, damn. Damn and a whole lot
> of other words that I don't usually say.
> Meanwhile, the nymphomaniac in me isn't sure whether the optimist is
> right or not. All she says is, 'don't take away my precious yiff
> sites!!!'
> Surprisingly, that other aspect of my personality that's sort of like
> cynicism agrees with optimist, saying, 'if they keep adding more
> constraints to our lives and our so-called freedom like this,
> eventually the camel's back will break.'

Communism pits man against man, in capitalism it's the other way around.
If the camel's back hasn't broken with what restrictions the US has put on
things thus far, there's nothing that will break it: unless they start
making changes a huge amount at a time, the camel will just keep getting
stronger.

Lord Flame Stryke

--
DC2.D~ Gm L120f60t180w W T Phawlt Sks Cbk,ere' Bfl A+++! Fr++ Nm M+ O H+ $
Fc~ R+++! Ac+++ J+ S++ U! I# V+++! Q Tc++ E++
Draco nigrum, oculi rubere, suppositus, magus.
Holder of the Scroll of Nobility from Lady Viriatha, Keeper of the Wand of
Sparklies in its case from Hex, Wielder of the Lady Viri Signature 4x8 from
Ysable, Eater of the Mint Cheesecake from Whisper, Mate to Lady Viriatha,
Owner of Flame Stryke's Windex® Factory, Lord Balloonmaker, Borrower of the
Ebony Wood Fife from Luxatos, Accepter of the Small Statue of a Green
Dragon Covered in Ice Cream Toppings from Juniper, Employer of a miniature
Jester doll from SeaKing, Bearer of the Magic Ever-Bill from SeaKing,
Carrier of the gold piece from whisper: o, Builder of Dragon Fyre Keep,
First Dragon of Realism, Giver of the Pickaxe of Icebreaking to Kalos,
Winner of the *shiny* riddle award from Pegasus

--
"The beauty of a pun is in the "Oy!" of the beholder." -- Herd Thinners

Vorheriges Thema:	Random poetry...
Nächstes Thema:	Needed to share this one.

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 07:12:36 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,83369 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.