Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Net Neutrality Supporters Want to Ban Drudge

  1. #11
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    29,649
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    UNLESS they just want to censor *everything*.


    EVERYTHING they don't agree with
    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    - Robert J. Hanlon.

    There is a deeply anti-democratic undercurrent to much of the criticism of the new president, borne aloft by an assumption that democracy is too important to be left to the voters.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    One of the reasons I ask questions like - what do you think will be the principle effect of this? Not "what it says it will do".

    Simple but true anecdote, first mentioned in The Dilbert Principle - management wants to provide incentives to create bug-free code.
    So they issue a decision - bonuses to programmers for every bug they eliminate and document as eliminated.
    Such a great idea - now they have a really good reason to seriously scrutinize their code.

    What do you THINK happened?

    Yes, exactly - programmers began LEAVING - or CREATING - bugs in their programs so they could get paid for removing them later.
    The INTENT was good, but the execution was - well - stupid. Any idiot could see what would happen.

    There is what net neutrality is intended to do - which I agree with - and what it can or might be construed to do or mean - which I don't.
    You are not really incentivizing the ISP's to behave in a certain way, you are more telling them what they cannot do. 3 widely cited examples of ISP's discriminating include based on content (taken from Wikipedia) include "when the Internet service provider Comcast was secretly slowing (a.k.a. "throttling") uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packetsComcast didn't stop blocking these protocols like BitTorrent until the FCC ordered them to do so.[7] In 2004, The Madison River Communications company was fined $15,000 by the FCC for restricting their customer’s access to Vonage which was rivaling their own services. [8] AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for the new shared data plans could access the application.

    I guess you could argue you are giving websites incentives not to worry about how much bandwidth their sites use. A small increase in quality may be worth a large increase in bandwidth if its not costly for the website. If that becomes a problem that I think there should be a way to address that, but at the moment its not a problem.

  3. #13
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    29,649
    Quote Originally Posted by philibusters View Post
    You are not really incentivizing the ISP's to behave in a certain way, you are more telling them what they cannot do.
    3 widely cited examples of ISP's discriminating include based on content (taken from Wikipedia) include
    yes, and they were dealt with .....

    ISPs are NOT like Verizon , AT&T, and Sprint TeleComs.



    All I saw on Reddit in the weeks leading up to the Congressional vote was my ISP can sell my web surfing habits to advertisers .... something Facebook and Google already do

    - but i don't have to use Google or Facebook [even though a majority do] - I have to use an ISP
    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    - Robert J. Hanlon.

    There is a deeply anti-democratic undercurrent to much of the criticism of the new president, borne aloft by an assumption that democracy is too important to be left to the voters.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by philibusters View Post
    You are not really incentivizing the ISP's to behave in a certain way, you are more telling them what they cannot do. 3 widely cited examples of ISP's discriminating include based on content (taken from Wikipedia) include "when the Internet service provider Comcast was secretly slowing (a.k.a. "throttling") uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packetsComcast didn't stop blocking these protocols like BitTorrent until the FCC ordered them to do so.[7] In 2004, The Madison River Communications company was fined $15,000 by the FCC for restricting their customer’s access to Vonage which was rivaling their own services. [8] AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for the new shared data plans could access the application.

    I guess you could argue you are giving websites incentives not to worry about how much bandwidth their sites use. A small increase in quality may be worth a large increase in bandwidth if its not costly for the website. If that becomes a problem that I think there should be a way to address that, but at the moment its not a problem.
    I mean - I GET why companies would throttle some of these things - they're cutting into their TV market by exploiting their Internet market.
    I think I read somewhere that at any given time, some large percentage of bandwidth in this country - is JUST Netflix.

    While I get the fact that they should be *fair* - this would be sort of like making McDonald's tolerate a Chik-Fil-A kiosk inside their building.
    Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong". Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by GURPS View Post
    yes, and they were dealt with .....

    ISPs are NOT like Verizon , AT&T, and Sprint TeleComs.
    I think I am misunderstanding your point there. It seems like you are saying Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint are Internet Service Providers, though they clearly are.

  6. #16
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    29,649
    Quote Originally Posted by philibusters View Post
    I think I am misunderstanding your point there. It seems like you are saying Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint are Internet Service Providers, though they clearly are.
    Verizon and ATT sell internet access for pcs Sprint doees through its smart phones ....... they are NOT the only companies selling internet access

    one of the big items of the Obama Era Rule changes was - reclassify ISPS as Telecoms - and use the FCC to manage them with Antiquated Telecom rules and regulations instead of the FTC which has been handling things just fine.
    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    - Robert J. Hanlon.

    There is a deeply anti-democratic undercurrent to much of the criticism of the new president, borne aloft by an assumption that democracy is too important to be left to the voters.

  7. #17
    Splat Toxick's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 2003
    Location
    Parked
    Posts
    18,585
    Quote Originally Posted by nhboy View Post
    I'm against this as it would lead to banning posters like GRUPS.
    This post wins today.
    I could be mistaken. Maybe it was another bald-headed jigsaw-puzzle-tattooed naked guy I saw.

Members who have read this thread: 29

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |