AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-08-14, 19:33   Link #21
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
To start off, I should be clear about what I consider net neutrality. Essentially, it should be the same as your telephone calls. No one call gets priority over another, despite what's being sent.

Part of the problem is that telephone companies are known as common carriers; they aren't responsible for what goes over their lines, just ensuring equal parity to everything. Currently, ISP's aren't listed as such, and that's what needs to change: ISP's should be made common carriers, and be prevented from becoming media companies as well.

However, the other change is that the US needs to declare that all those internet lines are public, and the ISP's can each lease them. The public paid for them, and gave $200 billion to telecoms to develop them, although they never did. It's time we took our property back, and made ISP's what they should have been: common carriers.

Just like telephone companies.

If net neutrality is blocked, or bartered away, then you can expect to see multiple companies charging you multiple fees for accessing content. Pay extra to access google. Pay extra to read your favored news site. Pay extra to come to AS.
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 21:29   Link #22
Master_Yoma
Nekokota Festival
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lost in the Fairy Forest
I dont like it all its going to be is pay more cash one dont have so large companies can bet and crash privet sites by giving faster speeds for a small fee
__________________
Master_Yoma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 23:38   Link #23
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Kaijo wins this thread for pointing out the 800-pound gorilla in the room.

The US government gave over $200 billion to the major telcos in this country to further develop broadband infrastructure.

They took the money.

They did not expand the infrastructure.

We want our money back.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 23:50   Link #24
Hooves
♣~Sleepy~♣
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Xanadu
Age: 20
Send a message via Skype™ to Hooves
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
Kaijo wins this thread for pointing out the 800-pound gorilla in the room.

The US government gave over $200 billion to the major telcos in this country to further develop broadband infrastructure.

They took the money.

They did not expand the infrastructure.

We want our money back.
U.S got seriously ripped off and of course so many people in the U.S are pissed off due to this situation, but wasnt the money used for another situation? Or was I thinking it wrongly?
Hooves is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 23:58   Link #25
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
It was used for a multitude of things, but it was not used for what it was intended. Which is about par for the course for taxpayer money, sad to say. The US broadband infrastructure is ridiculously behind other countries' (especially certain Asian countries) and this money was supposed to be used to improve it and also bring broadband capability to areas that don't have service (rural areas, for instance).
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 00:04   Link #26
Hooves
♣~Sleepy~♣
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Xanadu
Age: 20
Send a message via Skype™ to Hooves
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
It was used for a multitude of things, but it was not used for what it was intended. Which is about par for the course for taxpayer money, sad to say. The US broadband infrastructure is ridiculously behind other countries' (especially certain Asian countries) and this money was supposed to be used to improve it and also bring broadband capability to areas that don't have service (rural areas, for instance).
A pity that we are now behind other countries in terms of infrastructure. I guess people that lived long enough to remember when the U.S had the best/rather close to great infrastructure are certainly going to be rather angry.

But I wonder why exactly did they switch to multiple things. The government should probably have a clear view that our infrastructure should be lacking, yet they take the money that the public gave them for that intention and just switch all of a sudden.
Hooves is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 00:38   Link #27
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
The funds were misused. Oh, sure, they made a token effort to expand services, but it wasn't $200 billion's worth.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 00:42   Link #28
Hooves
♣~Sleepy~♣
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Xanadu
Age: 20
Send a message via Skype™ to Hooves
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
The funds were misused. Oh, sure, they made a token effort to expand services, but it wasn't $200 billion's worth.
What a waste of $200 billion dollars by the way you put it... -.-
Hooves is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 01:48   Link #29
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
To start off, I should be clear about what I consider net neutrality. Essentially, it should be the same as your telephone calls. No one call gets priority over another, despite what's being sent.
It may be the best compromise in terms of getting everyone fair access to the internet, but it's a suboptimal use of the network.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 09:56   Link #30
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
It may be the best compromise in terms of getting everyone fair access to the internet, but it's a suboptimal use of the network.
It's working quite well in many European countries.

Anyway, for those curious about the $200 billion, I keep a number of links to stuff like this, you can read up on it here:

http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

Edit: As an aside, this is yet one more drop in the bucket for why I make the claim that corporations now own the government. I got dozens of links and stuff for those interested, though this isn't the best thread for them.
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 12:15   Link #31
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
It may be the best compromise in terms of getting everyone fair access to the internet, but it's a suboptimal use of the network.
This is very true, however, there's more at stake here than just using your equipment in the most efficient manner. This is more a political question than a technical one.

Making the Internet differentiate between traffic would be the most efficient and best way to handle things, ensuring that the equipment was performing at maximum efficiency. However, you have the unfortunate factor to consider here: Humans are Bastards.

Give them the capability to control which traffic gets priority over which and you can damn well bet that there's going to be a lot more than just network efficiency deciding who gets preferential treatment.

I know a lot of libertarians think that businesses care about nothing but money, and thus their behavior is predictable based on what creates the most profit, but this is not true. Businesses are made up of individuals and those individuals can hold irrational biases and prejudices.

I distinctly remember being refused service at several businesses (a few restaurants, a supermarket) because I was with my girlfriend and it was obvious to anyone with eyes that we were a couple.

Now how does that make any kind of sense from a business perspective? It doesn't. A straight couple or single person's money is not any more green than a lesbian couple's. However, we were still denied service based upon something that had nothing to do with profit or efficiency, instead based upon personal bias and prejudice.

Lasseiz-faire capitalism looks great on paper--just like socialism does. But in practice, neither of them work properly because humans often act irrationally.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 12:37   Link #32
Ending
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
I'm sure it works out whatever the case. Internet is, after all, a collection of thousands of networks. Getting all of them to unite behind the same rules is impossible, because any deviation is bound to get them attention (which is good for business). So, even if all the big players unite, it will eventually turn against itself.

The only possibility that I can think of is that governments outlaw free access to the net, like they have done in several arabian countries and in China. But again that only splits Internet in two tiers: the open/censored net and the old skool nerdy net (with encrypted connections, passwords, challenge keys, and containers a lá TrueCrypt).
Ending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 12:44   Link #33
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ending View Post
I'm sure it works out whatever the case. Internet is, after all, a collection of thousands of networks. Getting all of them to unite behind the same rules is impossible, because any deviation is bound to get them attention (which is good for business). So, even if all the big players unite, it will eventually turn against itself.

The only possibility that I can think of is that governments outlaw free access to the net, like they have done in several arabian countries and in China. But again that only splits Internet in two tiers: the open/censored net and the old skool nerdy net (with encrypted connections, passwords, challenge keys, and containers a lá TrueCrypt).
This is pretty much why I'm not worried that much about it. Still sore over the misused $200 billion, but I'm not too worried about the Internet ever actually losing it's open nature, unless we get a cyberpunk dystopia going on for real.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 13:14   Link #34
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post

I know a lot of libertarians think that businesses care about nothing but money, and thus their behavior is predictable based on what creates the most profit, but this is not true. Businesses are made up of individuals and those individuals can hold irrational biases and prejudices.

I distinctly remember being refused service at several businesses (a few restaurants, a supermarket) because I was with my girlfriend and it was obvious to anyone with eyes that we were a couple.

Now how does that make any kind of sense from a business perspective? It doesn't. A straight couple or single person's money is not any more green than a lesbian couple's. However, we were still denied service based upon something that had nothing to do with profit or efficiency, instead based upon personal bias and prejudice.
Well, you have to look at the big picture. Do those restaurants cater to homosexuals or to homophobes? It's hard to do both.

Quote:
Lasseiz-faire capitalism looks great on paper--just like socialism does. But in practice, neither of them work properly because humans often act irrationally.
True, but that doesn't necessarily imply that a one-size-fits-all internet is the only solution.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 13:43   Link #35
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
I'm inclined to agree with that, but I think it needs to be studied more thoroughly.

And those restaurants should cater to paying customers.

Democracy? Socialism? Libertarianism? Screw all that, I long for a meritocracy, where the only thing that matters is how awesome you are and how much you contribute. Looks, age, religion, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, family history, past bad acts, none of this would matter as long as you rocked at whatever you did.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 13:46   Link #36
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
I'm inclined to agree with that, but I think it needs to be studied more thoroughly.

And those restaurants should cater to paying customers.
Yeah, but homophobes' money is as good as anybody else's.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 13:56   Link #37
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
I know what you're getting at; it's a numbers game. There's more haters than not.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 15:59   Link #38
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
I am aware of that, but with current wireless standards, we can't reach over an ocean--max range for 802.11n is around 100 meters. And cellular networks are very much a closed network, so they're out.
so all us nice land line people have to suffer because of those evil wireless devils, huh?
Roger Rambo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-15, 18:06   Link #39
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
Lasseiz-faire capitalism looks great on paper--just like socialism does. But in practice, neither of them work properly because humans often act irrationally.
The actual truth is that capitalism and the free market specifically rely on rational actors, and total information being available. But people are inherently irrational, and it's in the interests of capitalist corporations to suppress information, so a totally free market just does not work. It has to be tightly regulated.

The next time someone mentions lasseiz-faire, capitalism, and the free market, preaching as if it's a good thing, then find the nearest chair and smack them. They are trying to hoodwink you.
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-16, 13:00   Link #40
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Tightly regulated, no. That's giving too much power to the government. Regulation should always be done with a light touch.

People who think that greedy corporate CEOs are any different than greedy senators and Congressmen are delusional. Our esteemed elected officials are in it for exactly the same reason--the money and the power.

So what do we do? Find a healthy balance and make sure there's plenty of oversight--on both the regulators and the regulated!
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:10.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.