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.
In the Netherlands there is a law against forming kartels/monopies that has been used agains oligargies carving up the market. Is there such a law in Canada and the U.S. and is it implemented?
I honestly hate this group's videos. They use that woman's boobs for so much deception, and then they DON'T EVEN SHOW THEM. WE GET SCRAWNY FRENCH GUYS INSTEAD.
Yeah, these people are really annoying. They are useless at explaining their point in a clear manner, and just get mass viewers because they deceptively place that girl in their vids.
let's see what they say when lobbyists start treating washington to fancier and fancier dinners.
from wikipedia:
The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term
basically my point is that the FCC is as subject to corruption as nearly every other part of our government is.
oh, after some more research, on this kevin martin character. turns out he does not kick ass. not at all.
also taken from wikipedia:
Before becoming a commissioner, Martin was a Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. He has also served as the Deputy General Counsel to Bush-Cheney 2000, on the Bush-Cheney recount team in Florida, and on the Presidential Transition.
Before joining Bush-Cheney 2000, Martin served as legal advisor to FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, in the Office of the Independent Counsel, and as an associate of Wiley Rein LLP. One of Wiley Rein's most important clients is Verizon ([1], [2], [3]).
Upon graduation from law school, Martin served as a judicial clerk for Judge William M. Hoeveler of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami.
On December 3, 2007, John Dingell (D) of the House Commerce Committee sent a letter to Martin stating that "given several events and proceedings over the past year, I am rapidly losing confidence that the commission has been conducting its affairs in an appropriate manner." Martin is under investigation for a lack of transparency in FCC proceedings as well as an abuse of his power in relation to cable industry regulations. He has also been accused of keeping his fellow commissioners in the dark in an attempt to push through policy. Dingell further commented that this, his cable industry proceedings, as well as an attempt to relax the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban "lead to larger concerns as to the inclination and ability of the commission to perform its core mission: the implementation of federal law to serve the public interest."[1]
On June 11 2008 02:37 KaasZerg wrote: In the Netherlands there is a law against forming kartels/monopies that has been used agains oligargies carving up the market. Is there such a law in Canada and the U.S. and is it implemented?
Yes but this wouldn't be a monopoly or kartel, this would be more like making the internet like cable or satelite television. And theres nothing illegal about that, theres just mass numbers of people against it and a small number of greedy people who can make it happen despite resistance.
On June 11 2008 02:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote: she has an amazing rack. I just wish she would allow us to see them. Not very neutral of her to keep them private.
All it takes is one company to realize they like profit and this whole plan would fall apart.
On June 11 2008 02:37 KaasZerg wrote: In the Netherlands there is a law against forming kartels/monopies that has been used agains oligargies carving up the market. Is there such a law in Canada and the U.S. and is it implemented?
The sad thing about this is the people who want to make it happen, are already completely loaded with cash. All they want is more easy money, and they don't care that it's at the cost of world happiness. These people either: have no souls, are ignorant of the damage they're causing, or do a lot of drugs, just in that they can sleep at night (known by virtue of the fact that people die when they don't sleep )
Completely selfish and absurd, but I have no idea how you're supposed to stop people with that much money. These people could get away with murder if they wanted to.
If you think about it, these people taking away freedoms from the internet, is like when people took away land from the natives. Both are claiming rights to things they shouldn't, and both are inconsiderate and selfish.
Aren't there any groups with lobbying power that would be against this? Like say game companies and other entertainment industries that benefit hugely from fansites (imagine where Blizzard's StarCraft would be without TeamLiquid, sclegacy, replay databases, mapping forums, etc). It would mean Blizzard would have to give fans their own server space to create their websites, which is not only a pain in the butt, it's expensive for Blizzard just to pay everyone's service provider to allow their sever to have fast speeds.
End of the internet is right. The only sites that will get subscribers are youtube and facebook.
On June 11 2008 05:12 Kong John wrote: Seriously all the refferences is stuff like this
[...]
That guy is the biggest moron in the world! Ive never seen anyone so retarded! His douchnes completely overshines this important topic
Yeah... but in this case it's actually a good thing. As many people as possible need to know what net neutrality is and why it is important. No matter which douchebag puts which crappy video on Youtube as long as the right message is spread IMHO. Of course, the boobies are only there to attract viewers, and they probably only appear in the center frame which Youtube uses as the video preview thumbnail.
On June 11 2008 05:27 Funchucks wrote: This is stupid.
These idiots don't know what they're talking about.
AGAIN! Please can one of you naysayers actually tell me WHY YOU ARE NAYSAYING!
I am completely, 100% open to changing my mind. I WOULD LIKE THAT. It would settle my mind. But none of you bloody people are giving opinions to the contrary of my op!
I'm actually starting to WANT Kwark to come here and give about a bajillion pages to the contrary. At least I could finally see why you guys are so fucking certain that net neutrality isn't under threat!
I mean have you guys potentially considered that the industries involved with this have always been going to react this way, they just needed the time and resources; and now they have them? It's pretty damn worrying imo ¬¬
See, that's your problem. If you had said in the OP "I'm totally right and everyone that disagrees is an idiot", we would've stepped up and given you your thirty pages of analysis on why you're wrong. Now that you're so open to everything and friendly, there's just no motivation.
On June 11 2008 05:44 Jibba wrote: See, that's your problem. If you had said in the OP "I'm totally right and everyone that disagrees is an idiot", we would've stepped up and given you your thirty pages of analysis on why you're wrong. Now that you're so open to everything and friendly, there's just no motivation.
get the fucking tits off this topic. this hurts their cause more than help. why do we need this girl whoring herself out to get attention for what is obviously a serious issue. FUCK THESE GUYS ARE IDIOTS! this topic actually matters ffs....
I was aware, I just felt like posting this video in combination with a reinvigorated look. I feel that people have been too quick to dismiss this issue as non-threatening. I just want to really examine WHY so many people on TL are so blaze about it.
On June 11 2008 05:27 Funchucks wrote: This is stupid.
These idiots don't know what they're talking about.
AGAIN! Please can one of you naysayers actually tell me WHY YOU ARE NAYSAYING!
He starts out by talking about a grand conspiracy where you'll only have access to a small number of commercial websites, like a cable package, and you'll have to subscribe individually to each other website you want to see.
I don't even know where to start criticising that. It has nothing to do with anything and absolutely no basis in reality. He just pulled it out of his ass.
Net neutrality is the new name for QOS (quality of service).
The internet is based on a fairly simple protocol: IP (Internet Protocol). At any node on the network, you can emit a packet (piece of data) with a label for any other node, and the network tries to deliver it to the intended destination. All packets are treated equally. If there's any problem, the network just throws the packet away, and the computers at each end have to use a higher-level protocol to deal with lost packets.
All packets being treated equally is called "net neutrality." It has advantages and disadvantages, and shouldn't be oversimplified.
A QOS extension to IP would allow packets to be marked as high priority (presumably packets from someone paying extra, or a business partner, or something like that). When a conflict arises, normal-priority packets would get thrown out in preference to the high-priority packets. There could be other means of special treatment, such as sending high-priority packets along reserved physical links.
The strongest argument against QOS enhancements is that they could be abused by internet service providers (ISPs). The idea is that rather than just using the extra money from QOS payments to provide a higher level of service (for instance, high-definition Youtube for subscribers, or perfect low-ping online gaming), they would simply lower the performance of non-QOS-enhanced sites (Youtube takes 2 hours to load a 5 minute video unless you subscribe, bittorrent stops being worth using, all websites that haven't made a deal with your ISP will slow to a crawl, etc.).
Right now, there is nothing enforcing net neutrality. ISPs and backbone service providers are free to implement QOS enhancements if they want. So far, they haven't accomplished anything of note along those lines, although they've long wanted some kind of juicy premium service income stream. They've had trouble coming to agreements, and there isn't all that much interest in paying premiums.
The status quo is: we have net neutrality, we have no legislated enforcement of net neutrality. This is the way it has worked all along. So far, so good.
Some people are worried that we have no legislated enforcement of net neutrality. Other people are annoyed at the thought of government action blocking all of the improvements QOS enhancements could offer.
It's a complex issue, and ignorant people getting very excited about it won't help anything.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidpoker.net/user_pictures/10b84550f1288ef78ab18f1daf6c16fc.png)
. Vote the bugger in!
