|
Post by stonehawk on May 15, 2010 22:09:10 GMT -5
Why don't I see anything about preserving Net Neutrality?
Don't you understand how HUGE an issue this is? I don't WANT corporations to have the ability to tell me what I am and am not "allowed" to view online. Express an opinion Cox Communications doesn't like? They'll shut you down. Yeah, it's illegal now, but guess who's fighting to make it LEGAL?
TEABAGGERS.
PLEASE DO SOMETHING, POGO TRIBE! WE ARE THE INTERNET! We have only ourselves to blame if we let these ignorant fearmongers silence us! Fight for net neutrality!
I wish, I SO wish, we could lobby congress about this, but my plea to set up a political action committee via the pogo tribe failed. I don't know what channels we can act through in order to get heard. This could be the one most important thing we will ever know; the golden age of the internet, where communication like ours could even happen, may very well end.
Here we are, standing in a field, chewing the cud, waiting for the farmer to lead us to the meat grinders, I've broken the fence in front of us, and I AM BEGGING US TO RUN. Please do something ;_; I can't act alone.
|
|
|
Post by penguinpalsrkewl on May 16, 2010 16:16:30 GMT -5
Oh wow nobody replied to this yet.
I think this is terrible. At first I wasn't sure if it was real, or some stupid idiot just made it up to scare everybody, but by now it seems kinda legit.
I really don't know what we are supposed to do though. Refuse to obey? Petitions? Tell the government about it? Obviously if enough people voice their opposing opinions about it, they'd consider rethinking it, but these people would need to have reasonable arguements.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on May 16, 2010 16:25:53 GMT -5
shoe me examples of censorship...and maybe ill get annoyed, and i dont mean china...or iran...
|
|
|
Post by hey light on May 16, 2010 17:28:00 GMT -5
shoe me examples of censorship...and maybe ill get annoyed, and i dont mean china...or iran... I think a lot of times the ISPs slow down sites like youtube or BitTorrent sites a lot, and then speed up their own portal sites. This is a more in-depth explanation:
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 16, 2010 17:39:07 GMT -5
Well here in america we have the right to petition, so why not start? Its a good starting step
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on May 16, 2010 17:57:25 GMT -5
shoe me examples of censorship...and maybe ill get annoyed, and i dont mean china...or iran... I think a lot of times the ISPs slow down sites like youtube or BitTorrent sites a lot, and then speed up their own portal sites. This is a more in-depth explanation: honestly i have no problem with that you need a net to have neutreality on it...if their network is being overloaded by bittorrent or video sites, then let them slow it down. if the network went down, this would be a non issue...so this is really an invalid complaint
|
|
Helmet
Star
Man Up By Womaning Down
Posts: 567
|
Post by Helmet on May 16, 2010 18:29:33 GMT -5
Maybe they should slow down websites that are junk that no one cares about. There are thousands of websites that no one goes to, so why not slow those down?
|
|
|
Post by hey light on May 16, 2010 18:37:41 GMT -5
I think a lot of times the ISPs slow down sites like youtube or BitTorrent sites a lot, and then speed up their own portal sites. This is a more in-depth explanation: honestly i have no problem with that you need a net to have neutreality on it...if their network is being overloaded by bittorrent or video sites, then let them slow it down. if the network went down, this would be a non issue...so this is really an invalid complaint Maybe they should slow down websites that are junk that no one cares about. There are thousands of websites that no one goes to, so why not slow those down?
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on May 18, 2010 1:17:22 GMT -5
read my post, youll find the answer there...the reason they slow down the really active sites is becuse it is those sites that pose a threat to their network. they cant handle the bandwidth or throughput, so they throttle it. there is no point throttling sites like SPOTM lets say, becuase we post no potential threat to their network in terms of overload. as you said, these are sites no one visits, and as such tehy are irrelevant to the network integrity.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on May 20, 2010 3:21:35 GMT -5
shoe me examples of censorship...and maybe ill get annoyed, and i dont mean china...or iran... interfax.werebuild.eu/2010/03/27/back-off-from-the-internet-malmstrom/read my post, youll find the answer there...the reason they slow down the really active sites is becuse it is those sites that pose a threat to their network. they cant handle the bandwidth or throughput, so they throttle it. there is no point throttling sites like SPOTM lets say, becuase we post no potential threat to their network in terms of overload. as you said, these are sites no one visits, and as such tehy are irrelevant to the network integrity. The thing is that once companies are given such an opportunity, they can use it to sabotage website competition, or even censor information which they don't like.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on May 24, 2010 10:46:39 GMT -5
you do realize that throttling isnt censorship...and you do realize that throttled web access is better than no web access at all, right?
|
|
|
Post by foxtrot on May 30, 2010 18:35:50 GMT -5
Trust me, the panic over net neutrality began in early 2008. Nothing's going to change anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by neilgdickson on May 30, 2010 20:30:02 GMT -5
you do realize that throttling isnt censorship...and you do realize that throttled web access is better than no web access at all, right? You do realize that the ISPs are lying, right? The only major expense that an ISP (or TV distributer) has is infrastructure, and up to a certain point that infrastructure gets paid for by government support. They can charge for internet at a ridiculous markup if they can get away with not spending anything on new infrastructure, so they make up some story about how they're running out of bandwidth while they're advertising supposed record high bandwidths. They use the made up story as an excuse to justify shutting down competing services. An example of internet censorship is Comcast sending fake server reset packets to make people lose connections to YouTube and other video sites. An example of TV censorship is Comcast in the US, or Shaw in Canada (probably lots of other companies too), replace some ads for competing companies with their own ads. Every once in a while you'll see another ad start for a quarter-second before a Shaw ad starts, and it's because they're determining whether to substitute their own. Quite frankly I find it disgusting, and no matter how much they shine the sh**, it's mind-blowingly immoral.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 31, 2010 12:14:00 GMT -5
you do realize that throttling isnt censorship...and you do realize that throttled web access is better than no web access at all, right? You're under the delusion that the options are throttled access or no access, and it's not nearly that simple. It should legally be an ISP's responsibility to consistently give you the transfer rate/bandwidth that you pay for. After all, when you signed up for your ISP at 3 mbps, you didn't sign up for "3 mbps... unless you're on YouTube, in which case it's 56kbps", you signed up for 3mbps, period. While things like net traffic and the like can cause unavoidable dips here and there, intentional throttling of connection is never okay. IF their bandwidth is so overloaded that they can't match the needs of everyone viewing something like YouTube, then it's their responsibility to take a chunk of their profit margin and use it to upgrade their infrastructure so that it CAN, not to punish the paying customer.
|
|