FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It's a combo-curse.
CENSORSHIP... AKA: NET NEUTRALITY!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
It's a combo-curse.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
You know what we need Assman?
We need a law that says that restaurants need to charge water for free. I mean now sure they do give it out for free and always have, as much as you want, but man they COULD start charging for that water!!!
Clearly this crisis necessitates involvement by our beloved government to come in and protect us.
Point made I fucking hope.
You know this whole thing makes me wonder who even came up with this kooky idea that exists in just about no other business, I'm gonna look it up.
Ok just as I thought, net neutrality came not from any actual problem but from some Liberal professor, Tim Wu, who conceptualized what could happen and for some reason thought it needed to be stopped. Amazing.
Your bluster and idiocy doesn't improve your case. All server traffic should be treated equally. They should not have the right to throttle down bandwith selectively. That's like if your phone company could make some numbers crystal clear when connected, and make others sound crappy, according to their agenda.
KingCondanomation
New member
My brother in law has satellite, smaller company, they are faster but more expensive.
A lot of things vary in price based on where you live, out in the country I pay less for construction work or just about any skilled labor, I get free water with my well, but on the other hand I pay more in a few goods like internet usage.
These are things we all factor in to where we want to live, New York City is very expensive for some things, do we have government step in and decide what is too much and what is not, what types of service should be provided and how?
This is critical for you Water, you once told me you were not a Hugo Chavez lover and thought his controls on business were retarded.
Well I understand this affects you so it's tougher to be a man of your words but you still need to be.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Your need to bring in so much other bullshit belies the weakness of your case. Just so you know.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No doubt Communist Socialist Marxist Liberals WANT it to happen, that way you can "filter" my content and only allow me to visit websites that are "fair" in your eyes, and restrict me from visiting websites you don't feel are "appropriate" for me. And there is no doubt you will convince enough Government Sheep to support your censorship and turn our freedom over to the government! All you have to do is frame the argument in an insidious way, so as to make us think government is "protecting" us from those mean old greedy "telcoms!"
KingCondanomation
New member
Why couldn't we say they throttle the bandwidth up for higher class users?
You know gAsscap when I worked at a pizza place, we had 2 for 1 (buy one get one free) only, we didn't offer single pizzas, so every now and then some guy ONLY wanted a single pizza and to pay less and said it was unfair to have to get the 2 pizzas.
Finally the owner started offering a single pizza for less.
Then I had a guy who said we didn't really have 2 for 1 pizza because it was cheaper for a single pizza, he said the 2nd pizza isn't really free.
Which just goes to show you that no matter HOW you offer your goods and services, somebody out there will think you are unfair.
That is why it is critical to let the market decide WHO they think offers what THEY consider the best deal. Government should not decide for them by making it one size fits all.
once again retard, net neutrality is all about free unadulterated access to the internet, it's the opponents of net neutrality that want regulations put into place.
KingCondanomation
New member
This last part is completely untrue, I am fighting against net neutrality which means government FCC imposed regulations on providers.
You know what we need Assman?
We need a law that says that restaurants need to charge water for free. I mean now sure they do give it out for free and always have, as much as you want, but man they COULD start charging for that water!!!
"Still, other companies have acted in contrast to these assertions of hands-off behavior and have begun to use Deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of Cellphone overage charges, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and bundling.[7]"
the only way to provide for a free unhindered internet is through net neutrality. proponents of net neutrality are the ones that favor unrestricted, uncensored internet access. There is NOTHING in net neutrality that supports ANY type of regulation of the net. It IS AGAINST such measures. it is the TELECOMS that want to start restricting data.
the only regulation we are talking about is the regulation to not regulate, essentially.
KingCondanomation
New member
Do you object to what is bolded above? If not then why would you object to it in one media like the internet as opposed to another media like telecommunications?
And again, you have choice when a business does something you don't like.
Net neutrality is pushing regulations on to business, the telcos. A lot of telcos, are facing rising costs from more internet usage, believe me I know I deal with them every day, you agree with that yes? (ie: heavier usage requires more and better equipment).
So, what are they going to do, they look for cost saving ways like any business, they could always increase prices for all but that might not be the best approach (I sure as hell don't want it), another largely HYPOTHETICAL way is to price out content to help cut down on customer usage and/or have those who use more pay more (hardly a radical concept in plenty of businesses).
Now suppose you support net neutrality and have the government FORCE them to not charge anything different or any restrictions on content, well they are still facing rising costs, don't be surprised if that eventually leaves them no choice but to charge you more.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Yes. It is a reglation on business. Like laws against child labor.
they should not be able to discriminate based on content.
we like it like it is now. Shove your fascism.
KingCondanomation
New member
Right and magazine publishers shouldn't be allowed to charge different rates for different magazines, those discriminating bastards. Geezus at least in THAT case it's actually happening rather than regulating the hypothetical.
???
Well if you do then don't support net neutrality which would change it by imposing federal regulations on service providers.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
That's content. Should the usps charge different rates to deliver them? That's a better analogy.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Internet companies maintain this monopoly over rural areas mainly through signing contracts with local governments. I've never proposed anything Chavez-like (seriously). Despite my radical reputation, I'm probably one of the most pro-business liberals on this board.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
As long as it's totalitarian, fascistic and rights denying business...
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I refer you to RFC 2488
There is an inherent delay in the delivery of a message over a satellite link due to the finite speed of light and the altitude of communications satellites.
Many communications satellites are located at Geostationary Orbit (GSO) with an altitude of approximately 36,000 km [Sta94]. At this altitude the orbit period is the same as the Earth's rotation period. Therefore, each ground station is always able to "see" the orbiting satellite at the same position in the sky. The propagation time for a radio signal to travel twice that distance (corresponding to a ground station directly below the satellite) is 239.6 milliseconds. For ground stations at the edge of the view area of the satellite, the distance traveled is 2 x 41,756 km for a total propagation delay of 279.0 ms [Mar78]. These delays are for one ground station-to-satellite-to-ground station route (or "hop").
Therefore, the propagation delay for a message and the corresponding reply (one round-trip time or RTT) could be at least 558 ms. The RTT is not based solely on satellite propagation time. The RTT will be increased by other factors in the network, such as the transmission time and propagation time of other links in the network path and queueing delay in gateways. Furthermore, the satellite propagation delay will be longer if the link includes multiple hops or if intersatellite links are used. As satellites become more complex and include on-board processing of signals, additional delay may be added.
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2488.html#ixzz0kXtaksDY
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
ISP's are free to place bandwidth restrictions. The fact that they haven't yet tells me that it's just a bad business decision, and that bandwidth hogs aren't really that much of a problem.