Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:33:25 AM EST
The White House has now decided that the FCC does indeed have the authority to control the Internet.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/16/white-house-claims-power-to-regulate-tax-internet-without-congress/
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 11:35:59 AM EST
Awesome, so now a $50 internet connection is $58 so that someone else's $50 internet connection can be free.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 11:37:21 AM EST
It's just the way he operates. Knows it will take a while for it to be challenged and make it through the courts. It's how he rolls. Community organizer.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 11:38:54 AM EST
Goodie
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 11:39:21 AM EST
WOW just WOW..
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 11:40:47 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kihn:
It's just the way he operates. Knows it will take a while for it to be challenged and make it through the courts. It's how he rolls. Community Communist organizer.
View Quote


FIFY
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 11:46:38 AM EST
Net neutrality the concept is good.

Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 11:46:47 AM EST
The FCC controlling the INTERNET.

Shit
Piss
Fuck
Cunt
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 11:52:41 AM EST
Obama is so, like, awesome. It's so great that we have someone so intelligent and stuff.


Another piece of American Liberty disappears. Progressivism will continue until all the pieces are gone.

Link Posted: 1/16/2015 11:53:32 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
Net neutrality the concept is good.

Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad.
View Quote


Why?
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 11:55:22 AM EST
The emperor has decreed, make it so.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:02:51 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:


Why?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
Net neutrality the concept is good.

Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad.


Why?


Because when the .gov puts their hands on anything, it always cost 250% more than anticipated, works about 10% as well as they said it would, and gives the .gov more authority over us peasants. Have you not payed any attention to how our government works?
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:03:29 PM EST
ATLEAST ROMNEY DIDNT WIN RIGHT???????




Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:03:39 PM EST
Free broadband for some people.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:04:54 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kevv:
Because when the .gov puts their hands on anything, it always cost 250% more than anticipated, works about 10% as well as they said it would, and gives the .gov more authority over us peasants. Have you not payed any attention to how our government works?
View Quote


I don't share your pessimism.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:07:20 PM EST
Everyone in power grabs more power and will never relinquish power.

Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:11:48 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:


I don't share your pessimism.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:
Originally Posted By Kevv:
Because when the .gov puts their hands on anything, it always cost 250% more than anticipated, works about 10% as well as they said it would, and gives the .gov more authority over us peasants. Have you not payed any attention to how our government works?


I don't share your pessimism.


You are alone.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:15:09 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By B62stew:
The FCC controlling the INTERNET.

Shit
Piss
Fuck
Cunt
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits
View Quote


You forgot:
Fart
Turd
And twat

Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:16:01 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:


I don't share your pessimism.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:
Originally Posted By Kevv:
Because when the .gov puts their hands on anything, it always cost 250% more than anticipated, works about 10% as well as they said it would, and gives the .gov more authority over us peasants. Have you not payed any attention to how our government works?


I don't share your pessimism.

Your comment reminds me of that Geico Insurance commercial where the the two guys are living under a rock and oblivious. Wow...
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:17:50 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By patchouli:
Everyone in power grabs more power and will never relinquish power.

View Quote


Until heads start a rollin.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:20:17 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:


I don't share your pessimism.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:
Originally Posted By Kevv:
Because when the .gov puts their hands on anything, it always cost 250% more than anticipated, works about 10% as well as they said it would, and gives the .gov more authority over us peasants. Have you not payed any attention to how our government works?


I don't share your pessimism.



Of course you dont. Im sure Hussein picking which websites are GTG will be great.

Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:21:50 PM EST
MY net, MY rules.... oh, wait....
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:26:15 PM EST
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider.

If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored.


If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:26:32 PM EST
You didn't build that internet.

Al Gore did.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:32:27 PM EST
Can anyone explain what is really going on by leaving all the fuckobama and fcc gon tax ur kids away bullshit out of it?

Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:32:53 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SpanishInquisition:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider.

If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored.


If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone.
View Quote


The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:33:17 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SpanishInquisition:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider.

If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored.


If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone.
View Quote



By the time Hussein and his ilk are done with it, every website except DU and huffington post will take 3 days to load.

All in the name of fairness mind you.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:40:13 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By p2tharizo:


You forgot:
Fart
Turd
And twat

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By p2tharizo:
Originally Posted By B62stew:
The FCC controlling the INTERNET.

Shit
Piss
Fuck
Cunt
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits


You forgot:
Fart
Turd
And twat




Whoosh. Right over yer head.

Those are the "Seven Dirty Words".

Miss ya George
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:43:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/16/2015 12:44:07 PM EST by SOMT]
By far one of the worst decisions of 2015 so far.

Not a good start of the year for Supreme Leader Obama

Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:52:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:


I don't share your pessimism.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:
Originally Posted By Kevv:
Because when the .gov puts their hands on anything, it always cost 250% more than anticipated, works about 10% as well as they said it would, and gives the .gov more authority over us peasants. Have you not payed any attention to how our government works?


I don't share your pessimism.



clearly, you're not paying attention chokinghazard
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:54:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:


Why?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
Net neutrality the concept is good.

Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad.


Why?


Because you value HOPE over experience
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:55:15 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By B62stew:
The FCC controlling the INTERNET.

Shit
Piss
Fuck
Cunt
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits
View Quote


Ill take most common internet searched words for 500, Alex.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 12:56:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SOMT:
By far one of the worst decisions of 2015 so far.

Not a good start of the year for Supreme Leader Obama

View Quote


Keep that chin up, he still has 349 days left to top this.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 1:06:43 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
Net neutrality the concept is good.

Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad.
View Quote



Which net neutrality are you talking about?

Two versions came out:

1) Allows things to continue more-or-less as they have been.

2) The above when applied to a bill was morphed into mandating that the current crop of big-boys were explicitly allowed to throw their weight around as they saw fit and the consumer is screwed.

Link Posted: 1/16/2015 1:18:46 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bakkbakk:
Can anyone explain what is really going on by leaving all the fuckobama and fcc gon tax ur kids away bullshit out of it?

View Quote




'Net Neutrality' has been warped in several iterations through Congress.

At heart:

The desire to keep the internet from becoming 'enclaves' owned by the various companies that provide backbone (ATT, COMCAST, etc) who then charge companies like Netflix for access to their networks, or they will throttle their link speeds. As well, it would (in theory) keep the big companies from simply preventing the consumer from accessing website they decide they don't like (like www.ar15.com); or chargin higher prices for access outside of their backbone to consumers, effectively creating tiered levels of access to the internet.

What some people believe is going to happen with the FCC taking over is that the above things will be prevented by regulation. The fact is that the regulations are going to be whatever the FCC decides it is going to be, with influence by . . . someone. Also with influence by whoever holds the reigns of power at the moment (so look forward to constantly changing regulation).
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 1:20:59 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:


The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:
Originally Posted By SpanishInquisition:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider.

If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored.


If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone.


The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for.



Netflix pays for internet access, just like you do. In fact, what you are paying you ISP for is access to XXmbps from the internet . . . without regard to where it comes from. The big ISP's see the money that Netflix generates, see that their subscribers aren't buying cable as much, now they want to see if they can squeeze more cash from Netflix, instead of competing.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 1:26:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:


The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:
Originally Posted By SpanishInquisition:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider.

If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored.


If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone.


The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for.


Bullshit. If the ISP has overprovisioned their network to the point that they can't handle 20% of their subscribers using a few megabits concurrently, that's their problem not Netflix's.

Also, many cable providers have purchased major networks. They would just love to artificially cripple Netflix so they can pimp their own lucrative HD on demand service.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 1:27:26 PM EST
This should go well with BHO's "war on extremism," especially since anyone that disagrees is extremist.

Oh well, at least I get to watch a bunch of idiots cheer about how great this is...
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 1:36:08 PM EST
Shameless plug. My world will be complete when this comes to my town.

Link Posted: 1/16/2015 1:49:47 PM EST
The idea of net neutrality is good, every type of data costs the same, charge by the volume or speed. I don't have anything against real time prioritization...QOS type stuff but charging end users extra money to access certain areas of the internet is not good....they are trying to monetize something that has always been a flat rate access type deal..think cable packages or cell phone services.

The flip side is that .gov doesn't have a great track record of fixing....anything....and once it's under the aegis of the FCC...apparently government can just make rules as it goes...
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 2:50:15 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:



Which net neutrality are you talking about?

Two versions came out:

1) Allows things to continue more-or-less as they have been.

2) The above when applied to a bill was morphed into mandating that the current crop of big-boys were explicitly allowed to throw their weight around as they saw fit and the consumer is screwed.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
Net neutrality the concept is good.

Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad.



Which net neutrality are you talking about?

Two versions came out:

1) Allows things to continue more-or-less as they have been.

2) The above when applied to a bill was morphed into mandating that the current crop of big-boys were explicitly allowed to throw their weight around as they saw fit and the consumer is screwed.

1 is the first thing I said... 2 is the second thing I said... where's your confusion?


A good idea occurs... Government gets a hold on it and decides to label their bad idea with the name of the good idea... then they claim anyone who argues against their bad idea is arguing against the original good idea... Same thing happened with common core. Having common standards is good. The standards applied by the government? really really bad.

Good idea... Net neutrality. That the ISPs should treat every bit of data traveling over their network the same as any other bit and not throttle their competitors.
Bad idea... Leaving it up to a government agency with little to no oversight to regulate as they see fit and for whom ever can "lobby" them hardest.

If they really cared to have Net neutrality they would be ending the ISPs government endorsed monopoly status and allowing competitors to flood the market. The free market will prevent ISPs from throttling because they'd lose all their customers to a company that doesn't do that. But that hinges on there being a free market for ISPs themselves.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 2:56:55 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
1 is the first thing I said... 2 is the second thing I said... where's your confusion?


A good idea occurs... Government gets a hold on it and decides to label their bad idea with the name of the good idea... then they claim anyone who argues against their bad idea is arguing against the original good idea... Same thing happened with common core. Having common standards is good. The standards applied by the government? really really bad.

Good idea... Net neutrality. That the ISPs should treat every bit of data traveling over their network the same as any other bit and not throttle their competitors.
Bad idea... Leaving it up to a government agency with little to no oversight to regulate as they see fit and for whom ever can "lobby" them hardest.

If they really cared to have Net neutrality they would be ending the ISPs government endorsed monopoly status and allowing competitors to flood the market. The free market will prevent ISPs from throttling because they'd lose all their customers to a company that doesn't do that. But that hinges on there being a free market for ISPs themselves.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
Net neutrality the concept is good.

Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad.



Which net neutrality are you talking about?

Two versions came out:

1) Allows things to continue more-or-less as they have been.

2) The above when applied to a bill was morphed into mandating that the current crop of big-boys were explicitly allowed to throw their weight around as they saw fit and the consumer is screwed.

1 is the first thing I said... 2 is the second thing I said... where's your confusion?


A good idea occurs... Government gets a hold on it and decides to label their bad idea with the name of the good idea... then they claim anyone who argues against their bad idea is arguing against the original good idea... Same thing happened with common core. Having common standards is good. The standards applied by the government? really really bad.

Good idea... Net neutrality. That the ISPs should treat every bit of data traveling over their network the same as any other bit and not throttle their competitors.
Bad idea... Leaving it up to a government agency with little to no oversight to regulate as they see fit and for whom ever can "lobby" them hardest.

If they really cared to have Net neutrality they would be ending the ISPs government endorsed monopoly status and allowing competitors to flood the market. The free market will prevent ISPs from throttling because they'd lose all their customers to a company that doesn't do that. But that hinges on there being a free market for ISPs themselves.


Newsflash: the FCC already censors internet in the USA.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 2:57:09 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:



Netflix pays for internet access, just like you do. In fact, what you are paying you ISP for is access to XXmbps from the internet . . . without regard to where it comes from. The big ISP's see the money that Netflix generates, see that their subscribers aren't buying cable as much, now they want to see if they can squeeze more cash from Netflix, instead of competing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:
Originally Posted By SpanishInquisition:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider.

If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored.


If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone.


The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for.



Netflix pays for internet access, just like you do. In fact, what you are paying you ISP for is access to XXmbps from the internet . . . without regard to where it comes from. The big ISP's see the money that Netflix generates, see that their subscribers aren't buying cable as much, now they want to see if they can squeeze more cash from Netflix, instead of competing.


Netfils is responsible for a very larg percentage of ISP bandwidth on movie nights. ISPs would like some compensation to carry that content for them.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 2:58:19 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
Net neutrality the concept is good.

Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad.
View Quote



Which proves net neutrality is a bad idea.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 3:02:25 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:


Netfils is responsible for a very larg percentage of ISP bandwidth on movie nights. ISPs would like some compensation to carry that content for them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:
Originally Posted By SpanishInquisition:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider.

If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored.


If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone.


The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for.



Netflix pays for internet access, just like you do. In fact, what you are paying you ISP for is access to XXmbps from the internet . . . without regard to where it comes from. The big ISP's see the money that Netflix generates, see that their subscribers aren't buying cable as much, now they want to see if they can squeeze more cash from Netflix, instead of competing.


Netfils is responsible for a very larg percentage of ISP bandwidth on movie nights. ISPs would like some compensation to carry that content for them.



I'm looking at our bandwidth graph right now, we're moving ~70gbps... and pay for every fucking penny of that. There have been several instances where we've increased our bandwidth needs, and our service providers have brought in additional fiber and/or hardware as needed to accommodate our growth. We pay for that, too.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 3:13:39 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
1 is the first thing I said... 2 is the second thing I said... where's your confusion?


A good idea occurs... Government gets a hold on it and decides to label their bad idea with the name of the good idea... then they claim anyone who argues against their bad idea is arguing against the original good idea... Same thing happened with common core. Having common standards is good. The standards applied by the government? really really bad.

Good idea... Net neutrality. That the ISPs should treat every bit of data traveling over their network the same as any other bit and not throttle their competitors.
Bad idea... Leaving it up to a government agency with little to no oversight to regulate as they see fit and for whom ever can "lobby" them hardest.

If they really cared to have Net neutrality they would be ending the ISPs government endorsed monopoly status and allowing competitors to flood the market. The free market will prevent ISPs from throttling because they'd lose all their customers to a company that doesn't do that. But that hinges on there being a free market for ISPs themselves.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion:
Net neutrality the concept is good.

Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad.



Which net neutrality are you talking about?

Two versions came out:

1) Allows things to continue more-or-less as they have been.

2) The above when applied to a bill was morphed into mandating that the current crop of big-boys were explicitly allowed to throw their weight around as they saw fit and the consumer is screwed.

1 is the first thing I said... 2 is the second thing I said... where's your confusion?


A good idea occurs... Government gets a hold on it and decides to label their bad idea with the name of the good idea... then they claim anyone who argues against their bad idea is arguing against the original good idea... Same thing happened with common core. Having common standards is good. The standards applied by the government? really really bad.

Good idea... Net neutrality. That the ISPs should treat every bit of data traveling over their network the same as any other bit and not throttle their competitors.
Bad idea... Leaving it up to a government agency with little to no oversight to regulate as they see fit and for whom ever can "lobby" them hardest.

If they really cared to have Net neutrality they would be ending the ISPs government endorsed monopoly status and allowing competitors to flood the market. The free market will prevent ISPs from throttling because they'd lose all their customers to a company that doesn't do that. But that hinges on there being a free market for ISPs themselves.


this


but instead we're gonna double down on government derp.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 3:14:41 PM EST
Actually I did not think that even in concept it was good.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 3:40:01 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DarkCharisma:



I'm looking at our bandwidth graph right now, we're moving ~70gbps... and pay for every fucking penny of that. There have been several instances where we've increased our bandwidth needs, and our service providers have brought in additional fiber and/or hardware as needed to accommodate our growth. We pay for that, too.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DarkCharisma:
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:
Originally Posted By SpanishInquisition:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider.

If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored.


If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone.


The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for.



Netflix pays for internet access, just like you do. In fact, what you are paying you ISP for is access to XXmbps from the internet . . . without regard to where it comes from. The big ISP's see the money that Netflix generates, see that their subscribers aren't buying cable as much, now they want to see if they can squeeze more cash from Netflix, instead of competing.


Netfils is responsible for a very larg percentage of ISP bandwidth on movie nights. ISPs would like some compensation to carry that content for them.



I'm looking at our bandwidth graph right now, we're moving ~70gbps... and pay for every fucking penny of that. There have been several instances where we've increased our bandwidth needs, and our service providers have brought in additional fiber and/or hardware as needed to accommodate our growth. We pay for that, too.


What if I told you, you're a fucking liar.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 3:50:09 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:


Netfils is responsible for a very larg percentage of ISP bandwidth on movie nights. ISPs would like some compensation to carry that content for them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:
Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
Originally Posted By BigCat1911:
Originally Posted By SpanishInquisition:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider.

If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored.


If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone.


The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for.



Netflix pays for internet access, just like you do. In fact, what you are paying you ISP for is access to XXmbps from the internet . . . without regard to where it comes from. The big ISP's see the money that Netflix generates, see that their subscribers aren't buying cable as much, now they want to see if they can squeeze more cash from Netflix, instead of competing.


Netfils is responsible for a very larg percentage of ISP bandwidth on movie nights. ISPs would like some compensation to carry that content for them.
The ISP is already being compensated. Netflix pays for their connection and so does every user.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 3:55:02 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SOMT:


What if I told you, you're a fucking liar.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SOMT:
Originally Posted By DarkCharisma:

I'm looking at our bandwidth graph right now, we're moving ~70gbps... and pay for every fucking penny of that. There have been several instances where we've increased our bandwidth needs, and our service providers have brought in additional fiber and/or hardware as needed to accommodate our growth. We pay for that, too.


What if I told you, you're a fucking liar.



I'd tell you to open your inbox, where I've attached a screenshot of the MRTG graph for our datacenter.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 3:57:42 PM EST
It's "fuck you Friday " at the White House again.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top