These people seem pretty vehement that the net neutrality danger lurking in the background is more of a threat than most people, often flippantly, will tell you.
To be honest, I can see how this makes sense. If there were a global agreement between ISP's to net neutrality, then fair enough, you may say that companies that offered 'liberated' internet would stand to just steal all their customers; but in reality don't you think that actually, these companies would be pressured, illegally or otherwise, into eventually conforming? With potentially even governments stepping in to this.
I personally think this is a very important thing. I think that the 1990's were a lot more clamped down and protected than the 00's. The consumer had a lot less power in the 1990's. I think that many people in industry desperately want to return to that.
I can envisage board meetings in which the conclusion reached is that the period of phenomenal profligacy of internet material must be stamped out in the minds of the public as a brief period of confusion.
Potentially, such industry people (if they exist, and they probably do), consider the current internet to be like a child that has been allowed to come into existence; and now they feel like as it grows up, they should exert more control on it, and force it to make money for them, rather than just play around with lolcats and TL.net.
lol TUBES Tangela TUBES. But seriously do people just refuse to care about this on TL.net? I wonder how you are all so confident! *waiting for Kwark to come and drop a degrading 1 liner about my undeserved fears*
Mynock's video was funnier, but did not contain nearly as much cleavage.
Edit: Seriously though, I cannot take them seriously if they manipulate the video to have her tits on the center frame. And considering their/her past exploits, I don't give a shit about anything they say.
On June 11 2008 01:48 Lemonwalrus wrote: Mynock's video was funnier, but did not contain nearly as much cleavage.
Edit: Seriously though, I cannot take them seriously if they manipulate the video to have her tits on the center frame. And considering their/her past exploits, I don't give a shit about anything they say.
Why can't you address the text in my op then? These guys are definitely not complete idiots. At least they seem a cut above the typical pseudo-anarchist uni student political activist wanker.
On June 11 2008 01:48 Lemonwalrus wrote: Mynock's video was funnier, but did not contain nearly as much cleavage.
Edit: Seriously though, I cannot take them seriously if they manipulate the video to have her tits on the center frame. And considering their/her past exploits, I don't give a shit about anything they say.
Why can't you address the text in my op then? These guys are definitely not complete idiots. At least they seem a cut above the typical pseudo-anarchist uni student political activist wanker.
Well, I know that she has pretended that she was going to commit suicide to be an 'activist' about something and made a blog about it and everything, and that, to me, is a pretty wankerish thing to do.
I do think net neutrality is a big issue, don't get me wrong, and I agree with your op, I just think that this hurts their credibility.
I just think that some people have overlooked the crushing weight of behind-the-scenes financial and political pressure that would be involved in this sort of transition. Pressure on governments and even individuals that run companies and ISPs.
A lot of people very quickly talk about how ISPs will never be allowed, by the customer, to do this, and that the customer will just flip onto a free ISP. However, what if the industry declared these ISPs to have the same status as pirate radio? In fact, 'pirate internet' would be MUCH easier to police because all they'd have to do is take out your internet line. In business, the customers will always choose the most preferable option, but they won't make any more options. They'll just hope that more favourable options are made due to competition. But however when the more favourable options are made illegal, what the hell can the customer do except go to hippe jam band protest concerts?!
Hopefully this will enter the political stage and voters will get a say. Hopefully this movement against net neutrality will become political and not just financial.
On June 11 2008 01:38 HamerD wrote: To be honest, I can see how this makes sense. If there were a global agreement between ISP's to net neutrality, then fair enough, you may say that companies that offered 'liberated' internet would stand to just steal all their customers; but in reality don't you think that actually, these companies would be pressured, illegally or otherwise, into eventually conforming? With potentially even governments stepping in to this.
While the market would normally provide competitors, as you say, there is a problem when it comes to companies that provide Internet service. At least in the US, anyway. Early on, the US government granted many companies monopolies over the fiber within the ground, reaching the point where today the vast majority of fiber underground is owned and licensed out by 3-4 companies. This means that any new companies must rent fiber from the 3-4 big corporations, severely limiting competition. Sad, but true, and I think it makes something that would otherwise be fine unregulated need regulation. (Either that or they somehow find a way to fix the problem they created in the first place =/)
On June 11 2008 02:15 vGl-CoW wrote: guys we just made regular internet illegal you gotta use shitty internet now
what's that? haha no, i'm not hoping to be re-elected in fact i hate my job
Well what's frightening is that tbh the government might not necessarily get INVOVLED!
These big business like virgin might literally say 'you fucking leave us alone to make money or we're going to fuck you over' to them if they try to interfere. If this decision is purely on a business level, then without some sort of political action stirred up form somewhere, it might very well happen.
EPT
