GG Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 You not sourcing your work is my fault? ... Try making a justification that wouldn't be laughed out of community college. We're not in a community college. But you know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Is anyone unhappy with the internet currently? Why is this even a discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) We're not in a community college. But you know that. So you'd like to be held to a lower intellectual standard? Perhaps you'd also like a participation trophy? Edited February 26, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 So you'd like to be held to a lower intellectual standard? Perhaps you'd also like a participation trophy? If it comes from you, I will put it in a special place. Keep up the crusade, Don Quixote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) If it comes from you, I will put it in a special place. Keep up the crusade, Don Quixote All this, because you find it oddly meritorious to flaunt the most basic of intellectual standards. Don't worry. I'm sure people take you very seriously, what with all of your unsourced declaratives. Sourcing your work is hard. Quixotic indeed. Edited February 26, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 If you discount my opinion, why are you fighting so hard to find out what it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 If you discount my opinion, why are you fighting so hard to find out what it is?I share your opinion, nitwit. My issue is with the lazy way you participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 I share your opinion, nitwit. My issue is with the lazy way you participate. Then you can set an example and expand the discussion instead of asking me to do it. Go ahead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Then you can set an example and expand the discussion instead of asking me to do it. Go ahead If you scroll up a few posts, you'll note a post I made, which you responded to, in which I state that exact intent, and even provide a time-line. Is scrolling up too much effort as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) Net Neutrality as it currently exists is largely based on complaints from Netflix that they were being charged an increased rate from ISPs to stream their product. When they refused to pay the increased rates, the ISPs restricted the amount of bandwidth to them, resulting in movies/shows/etc being interrupted while the data buffered. The Netflix customer would be watching a show and would get a black screen with the little 'buffering' circle for a few moments until the picture resumed. Something that isn't being pointed out to people anywhere that I can see, is that ISPs and carriers have every right to charge companies like Netflix more, because the massive amount of bandwidth that they use puts tremendous strain on the network. The route that the data takes from Netflix to the customer obviously depends on where the customer lives. In some cases, the data passes through a multitude of different networks, some more capable of moving that data than others, each one belonging to a different ISP. Internet access is sold to people by bandwidth, and some of the lesser ISPs are hard pressed to deliver the same amount of bandwidth to customers that was originally promised, because overall use of the net has been growing exponentially. If one of these ISPs wants to charge more for the downstream access to companies like Netflix, they are (or should be) well within their right to do so. The effort to prevent companies from charging more in these circumstances is Net Neutrality. Despite the fact that the 300+ page plan to implement regulatory control is being kept from lawmakers, certain aspects of it are certain: The internet will become regulated by the feds. They propose to classify all ISPs as public utilities, just like they did with the telephone companies, except control of the internet is not a monopoly like Ma Bell was. This will include regulation of just about everything involving telecom, whether wireless, ethernet, or whatever. Remember too that a huge percentage of voice is no longer on copper, but is instead on various versions of VOIP. Net Neutrality won't make the internet go away or anything like that, but does anyone really think that there will be no impact? Does anyone think that any of this will actually help guarantee our privacy, or that regulatory control won't have an effect on quality of service, innovation, or cost? A lot of people rightfully screamed at the feds' takeover of the medical industry, and this is just as outrageous of a government takeover as the ACA was. The whole thing is a hoax, I suppose, if by 'hoax' you refer to the stated purpose for implementing it. Edited February 26, 2015 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Is anyone unhappy with the internet currently? Why is this even a discussion? What's wrong with it is that the government doesn't control it. Also I asked the same question whenever these idiots talk about a broken immigration system. The only thing broken is the people not enforcing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 If you scroll up a few posts, you'll note a post I made, which you responded to, in which I state that exact intent, and even provide a time-line. Is scrolling up too much effort as well? Now you're trolling. The whole thing is a hoax, I suppose, if by 'hoax' you refer to the stated purpose for implementing it. It's a hoax because people who are supporting "net neutrality" don't know what they're supporting, other than the term "net neutrality" sounds like something they should be supporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Bill probably mostly written by Comcast. Appropriate government officials paid off. Comcast consolidates power so they have a monopoly. Government officials pad there wallet. Also leftists get to regulate/censor the internet. Since the msm is dying fast they have to plug the freedom of speech that exists on the net. Like KD im not expert and how could I be? No one knows whats in this bill. Anyway, it's strictly instinctual. Like Reagan said. "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"An admitted non-expert with lots of preconceived notions. What an informative post - good reading! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 An admitted non-expert with lots of preconceived notions. What an informative post - good reading! Kind of like the overwhelming majority of those who support net neutrality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Both GG and yourself are just about the furthest thing from Socrates that exists on this web forum, so I'll politely thank both of you to forego the patronizing tone of Socratic questioning as a substitute for debate. Feel free to substitute a detailed expression of your opinions in the future. That will help to prevent you from appearing to be a huge flapping !@#$. Oh, I can explain it in painstaking detail. And I'm opposed, because, as you stated, it's a solution begging for a problem. I'll explain it either tonight or tomorrow, at length, because when you opined, you did not. Unless Socrates method was "be a douche to everyone and brag about your intellect even though it is pedestrian" you are doing it wrong. Are you the one that went to the hockey school or was that the other blowhard with the software? Did they teach you this crap there? Read your own comment. You claim to be asking me something politely but can't even do so without cursing. Your self assessment meter is out of whack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Now you're trolling. That's what I'm doing? Remember you said that. Your credibility is fading. Is this really where you want to hang your hat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) It's a hoax because people who are supporting "net neutrality" don't know what they're supporting, other than the term "net neutrality" sounds like something they should be supporting. Now that's something I agree with. At least now I know where you're coming from on this. I know that I'm probably being unrealistic in clinging to the notion of a free, unregulated internet being best for all parties, but it burns me that the feds - or any government entity, state, local, or whatever - will be insinuating themselves into assuming regulatory authority. It just seems to me to be an issue that everyone - right, left, centrist, or libertarian - would feel the same about, and I'm disappointed at the lack of national outrage - or even discussion - on the issue. Edited February 26, 2015 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Kind of like the overwhelming majority of those who support net neutrality.What's your opposition to the concept? Simply anti government regulation? I'm genuinely curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Personally, an unregulated internet is an ideal internet in my view. With these ISPs attempting to essentially force their own regulation on it in the form of taxing high bandwidth private content providers, the idea of a truly unregulated system is slipping away. So the question becomes: who should decide the rules. I know most of you will side with private industry, which in your view is represented by the ISPs here, but the content generators are generally smaller private companies. Ultimately, as always, the **** flows downhill. The ISPs are trying to pass the cost along to the content providers who will ultimately have to pass the cost along to the consumers. The ISPs only have their own interests at heart. This entire concept stifles innovation, erects barriers to entry and inhibits the free market beauty of anyone being able to act on a novel business idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Unless Socrates method was "be a douche to everyone and brag about your intellect even though it is pedestrian" you are doing it wrong. Are you the one that went to the hockey school or was that the other blowhard with the software? Did they teach you this crap there? Read your own comment. You claim to be asking me something politely but can't even do so without cursing. Your self assessment meter is out of whack. Some one has to fill in for Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts