Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Deleted
    I love the idea of passing the Costs on to the consumers so these poor, struggling isps can make more money.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Peggle View Post
    I love the idea of passing the Costs on to the consumers so these poor, struggling isps can make more money.
    It's almost as if not having a 5th ferrari makes you below the poverty line.......

  3. #43
    I cant believe this is an actual question... a joke question or even a consideration. If youre dumb enough to ask this or consider... then... god help you. if god exists... or you believe that something or someone or some higher power will save thee from thou stupidity.
    AMD Build: | CPU: FX-9590 OEM 8-Core(4.7 GHz) Black Edition | GPU: STRIX R9 380 2GB(x1) | Ram: 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory
    Main: Samsung 850 500GB | BU: WDC Caviar Blue 2TB(x2) | Power: Corsair CX500 | Mobo: Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 [Old faithful!]

    Now my living room center piece and open case HTPC.

  4. #44
    Immortal jackofwind's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Akaihiryuu View Post
    That's right! When you fill a bottle with water from your tap instead of using it to shower or water your plants, you should pay extra for that water since you're depriving the bottled water companies of money. You should also pay more for the electricity that you use to run your stove, because you're depriving restaurants of money when you could be going out to eat.

    This is probably just a bait post, but either way, bite me.
    But you do pay for water and electricity.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Because fuck you, that's why.

  5. #45
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    21,922
    I wish they tripled people's water and electricity bills whenever they said shit like this.

    Like, just pay, you're not entitled to clean water.

  6. #46
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Wallmaker Yahzarah View Post
    I cant believe this is an actual question... a joke question or even a consideration. If youre dumb enough to ask this or consider... then... god help you. if god exists... or you believe that something or someone or some higher power will save thee from thou stupidity.
    Beings of a higher plane you say? I'm beyond helping. I ogle at feet all day long.

  7. #47
    The Lightbringer Dr Assbandit's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Peggle View Post
    I love the idea of passing the Costs on to the consumers so these poor, struggling isps can make more money.
    The person leading the charge for this, Ajit Pai, is a former Verizon attorney who is lobbying for this under the guise of it being beneficial for both the consumer and small businesses along with rights the wrong of isp giants losing money. The amount of horseshit this is cannot be stated in one page as it absolutely murders growth for small businesses who make use the internet and solely benefits isp giants in creating monopolies.

    Lobbying for special interests is a stain on our governing process but hey like you said, it allows those poor poor isp companies to make more billions on top of the surplus they are already making.
    "It's time to kick ass and chew bubblegum... and I'm all outta ass."

    I'm a British gay Muslim Pakistani American citizen, ask me how that works! (terribly)

  8. #48
    Titan Al Gorefiend's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    A state of madness
    Posts
    12,078
    Quote Originally Posted by mistahwilshire View Post
    There's nothing circle jerk about it. No net neutrality means you'll be paying more for the same thing you already have right now, for absolutely no reason. This isn't a two sided topic. There's nothing to gain from losing neutrality. You simply pay more for the same thing you're already paying for.
    Question:

    Does net neutrality mean I'm unable to pay more money for an improved service? Sure my high speed internet for $100 a month is nice, but say I wanted to pay $200 a month for blazing fast speeds and uploading time. Would I be for or against net neutrality?

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Finnish Nerd View Post
    Beings of a higher plane you say? I'm beyond helping. I ogle at feet all day long.
    saw a lady the other day with feet that reminded me of monkey paws... i couldnt stop staring at them.
    AMD Build: | CPU: FX-9590 OEM 8-Core(4.7 GHz) Black Edition | GPU: STRIX R9 380 2GB(x1) | Ram: 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory
    Main: Samsung 850 500GB | BU: WDC Caviar Blue 2TB(x2) | Power: Corsair CX500 | Mobo: Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 [Old faithful!]

    Now my living room center piece and open case HTPC.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by jackofwind View Post
    But you do pay for water and electricity.
    but i don't pay different price for electricity I use for cooking, vs making posts on the internet. right now, my electric use is charge for equally regardless of what I use it for. more over, its not blocked or reduce if I'm using it for something like... powering my garage lights, or charging a phone. electric company doesn't get to decide what I use my electricity for, or how. they certainly don't charge me extra to power my water delivery from the well we have, to compensate for not paying for municipal water (which we are not using and have no acess to anyways)

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Humbugged View Post
    Question:

    Does net neutrality mean I'm unable to pay more money for an improved service? Sure my high speed internet for $100 a month is nice, but say I wanted to pay $200 a month for blazing fast speeds and uploading time. Would I be for or against net neutrality?
    you would be VERY FOR net neutrality, becasue imagine paying $100 extra to have overall higher speeds and still being throttled or denied acess to specific websites, unless you and/or website owners pay extra to your provider, just so that you could have the speed you originally paid for. net neutrality doesn't stop you from paying for better service. it stops your internet provider from denying you parts of that aforementioned better service.

  12. #52
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    17,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Humbugged View Post
    Question:

    Does net neutrality mean I'm unable to pay more money for an improved service? Sure my high speed internet for $100 a month is nice, but say I wanted to pay $200 a month for blazing fast speeds and uploading time. Would I be for or against net neutrality?
    It's entirely possible, yes. It would allow ISP's to (again, in theory, because the entire point of removing neutrality is that everything is up for grabs):

    You're looking at it the wrong way, though. It's not a case of "they slow you down, so you pay more for speed". It's a case of charging you more for specific things, being able to block you entirely unless either you, or the service you want, pays more, or simply slowing speed to certain things without you being able to do anything at all.

    The biggest problem is that the end user is the group that has LEAST control over speed, price, and service.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    you would be VERY FOR net neutrality, becasue imagine paying $100 extra to have overall higher speeds and still being throttled or denied acess to specific websites, unless you and/or website owners pay extra to your provider, just so that you could have the speed you originally paid for. net neutrality doesn't stop you from paying for better service. it stops your internet provider from denying you parts of that aforementioned better service.
    This is the core of the issue.

  14. #54
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Humbugged View Post
    Question:

    Does net neutrality mean I'm unable to pay more money for an improved service? Sure my high speed internet for $100 a month is nice, but say I wanted to pay $200 a month for blazing fast speeds and uploading time. Would I be for or against net neutrality?
    No, in short it means that isp cannot treat Internet traffic differently depending on the site. So for example they cannot prioritise their own streaming service over Netflix. But if net neutrality ended they would be able to.

    That's my understanding anyway, someone correct me if I'm wrong

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Fooliecoolie View Post
    Simply put, do you want to pay more for WoW if Blizzard had to pay internet providers more money for better service?
    Quick correction there. Blizzard wouldn't be paying the ISPs for better service, they would be paying them not to get worse service. It's racketeering.

    Blizz: Why do I have to pay you more all of a sudden?
    ISP: That's our new "you get to keep your legs" fee, pay up or else.
    The most difficult thing to do is accept that there is nothing wrong with things you don't like and accept that people can like things you don't.

  16. #56
    I think net neutrality at the ISP level is quite unnecessary. The problem that you're having is that you're not treating the wires as a commodity - instead you consider the service a commodity.

    This is actually a really grave mistake, because it means that companies control the wires, and as a consumer you have to prove that they're throttling you in order to make them stop.

    Frequently, despite the net neutrality laws, we've seen US ISP's throttle connections in spite of the law, but it's really hard to prove. And when you do, you can't really change it. I mean you can sue them and fight their army of lawyers, but you can't choose a different ISP. The ISP continues to control the wires to your house, and therefore they continue to have a monopoly in your area, and as a result you continue having problems.

    In Denmark we have a solution to this called Ledningsejerregistret (LER). This is a public registry of all the wires. You can view them all, you can set up a service that sends you e-mail when someone wants to dig in an area you're interested in as a company, and you also request access to dig in the ground from the municipality here. Then, the wires themselves are a utility, like roads. So you can build them because you want to sell in an area, but you have no control of them afterwards. Anyone can offer service there.

    The result is Denmark has 20+ competing services for almost every household unless you're really far out in the countryside. You can pick whomever you want. Often ISP's will work together to maintain the network. In Denmark, it's completely legal to give preferential treatment to some services. For example, Telia offers free unlimited access and downloads from Spotify, YouSee have their own music and video streaming services that don't count against the cap and gives you faster access, etc.

    If you don't like that stuff, you can simply pick another ISP that doesn't do it, like FullRate, NVe, CBB, etc.

    The result is more consumer choice, so if you don't like the service or price you're getting for a certain service, why you can simply just tell that ISP to go fuck itself and buy somebody else's service.

    Now, if these laws propose making the wires AND the service both not utilities, then that's obviously a problem, and against that I completely support this movement. However, there are better alternatives than net neutrality as you currently define it.

  17. #57
    Welcome to Comcast. You want Internet Access? Sure! Let's get started.

    Out basic 100MB/sec starts at $49.99/month

    Do you like YouTube? The first 10 videos a month are at full blazing speed, after that the next ones are at 2mb/sec. You can get around this with our special YouTube deluxe package for $4.99/month.

    Do you like to play games online? We've partnered with EA so that you can play Origin games at full speed! If you want to play from sources like Steam or Blizzard, you'll have slower access speeds unless you add our Leet Gamer package of $7.99/month.

    Oh... you're a fan of Reddit? Sorry, our service doesn't allow Reddit access, but we've partnered with a new service from the makers of Buzzfeed for something really similar, we're sure you'll love it!

    In accordance to our family friendly policies, we cannot allow you to view pornographic material I'm afraid. We redirect most porn sites to wholesome Christian ones.

    Our Netflix Lovers package is perfect for you! For only an additional $5.99/month you get to access Netflix (on top of the cost for the Netflix subscription, of course).

    Gmail? Sorry, we're having a dispute with Google over some things right now, but we're totally prepared to set you up with a Yahoo Mail account, free of charge!

    ---

    Sounds awesome, yeah?

  18. #58
    Titan Al Gorefiend's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    A state of madness
    Posts
    12,078
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    It's entirely possible, yes. It would allow ISP's to (again, in theory, because the entire point of removing neutrality is that everything is up for grabs):

    You're looking at it the wrong way, though. It's not a case of "they slow you down, so you pay more for speed". It's a case of charging you more for specific things, being able to block you entirely unless either you, or the service you want, pays more, or simply slowing speed to certain things without you being able to do anything at all.

    The biggest problem is that the end user is the group that has LEAST control over speed, price, and service.
    See, I get what you're saying but there's something I can't wrap my head around.

    Internet is an abstract, non-material thing. I say that loosely, like it requires electricity to power packets and the ISPs have their modems and shit...

    Okay, I can't really word this right without coming off as an idiot. So I'll just put it bluntly: who decides how much "An Internet" is worth in money when it's not a consumable resource like a potato or plank of wood.

    That sounds very dumb.

    What exactly does my $100 pay for in upkeep? Is it really just paying $100 for a privilege?

  19. #59
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    17,222
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    Welcome to Comcast. You want Internet Access? Sure! Let's get started.
    This is pretty much what is possible, except there are two things to note.

    1) 49.99 for 100mb/s is laughably low. The first thing they'll do is bump up prices. 80/mo for 50mb as their 'budget' plan, and 130/mo for 100mb.
    2) It will also strangle any other ISP, so any of those 'pay per data' or DSL or other companies will simply disappear, locking you into above service with no option.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  20. #60
    Immortal jackofwind's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    but i don't pay different price for electricity I use for cooking, vs making posts on the internet. right now, my electric use is charge for equally regardless of what I use it for. more over, its not blocked or reduce if I'm using it for something like... powering my garage lights, or charging a phone. electric company doesn't get to decide what I use my electricity for, or how. they certainly don't charge me extra to power my water delivery from the well we have, to compensate for not paying for municipal water (which we are not using and have no acess to anyways)
    Valid point. I never really paid attention to the issue before but I get it now.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Because fuck you, that's why.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •