Time to save the Internet

Come on in and shoot the virtual breeze...
(If you can't see the other forum sections, register and/or sign in!) :]

Time to save the Internet

Postby Junglestud on Wed May 31, 2006 11:06 am

...from big businesses...

http://www.savetheinternet.com/
-Erik

I always have coffee when I watch radar, you know that, everyone knows that!
User avatar
Junglestud
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2756
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Your Neighbor's 'Hood, MD


Postby mofiki on Wed May 31, 2006 4:49 pm

"From its beginnings, the Internet has leveled the playing field for all comers. Everyday people can have their voices heard by thousands, even millions of people"
i rais the bs flag the internet was created by the military as a means to keep all bases in the united states connected incase of a nuclear strike by the russians.
When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability. Image Image
User avatar
mofiki
Sir Camps-a-lot
Sir Camps-a-lot
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: rapid city south dakota


Postby Yari on Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:31 pm

I think hes mistakingly using the word "internet" in place of what he is really refering to, the "World Wide Web"
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)


Postby Yari on Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:43 pm

"Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign."

How does this violate my first amendment rights?!?

It sounds like a good idea to me. Unfortunatly it makes no sense whatsoever. How can they make some sights "work better" than others??? Limit bandwidth for certain sites? In that case, they already do that, websites with lots of money can afford more bandwidth.
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)


Postby mofiki on Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:19 pm

exactly but i still think that lobiest should be drug out in the street and shot for whatever they are lobbying for
When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability. Image Image
User avatar
mofiki
Sir Camps-a-lot
Sir Camps-a-lot
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: rapid city south dakota


Postby Yari on Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:59 am

Amen
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)


Postby KCSA_ChickenHead on Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:54 pm

mofiki wrote:"From its beginnings, the Internet has leveled the playing field for all comers. Everyday people can have their voices heard by thousands, even millions of people"
i rais the bs flag the internet was created by the military as a means to keep all bases in the united states connected incase of a nuclear strike by the russians.



DARPA funded ARPANET which was an experiment between several universities and military bases to demonstrate the usefulness of long distance data sharing capabilities. As more and more infrastructure was added, and connection to ARPANET was no longer "controlled" as its usefulness as a "peacetime tool" became apparent; it became "The Internet".

It was always a politician pipe dream (and drum beating stump speach topic of FUD) that the Internet was "nuke-proof", but that's just flat out wrong. The vast majority of the networking infrastructure the Internet is carried on is *not* resistant to the EMP effects of a multiple nuclear strike event. Those are not hardend US Millitary lines the data travels down - it's just every day telco trunks. There is a great amount of routing redundancy built into the architecture. And that would allow any large segment to be physically lost while still maintaining the functionality of the rest of the Internet. However, that in no way makes it "nuke-proof". The Internet is not more reistant to a nulcear strike than electricity grids, telephones/cable or radio transmissions are. In fact, it is less so given the additional complexity of its architecture's hardware.



As to the issue at hand here...

For a good, citable, read; this document lays down the realities of the situation pretty well:
http://www.freepress.net/docs/nn_fact_v ... _final.pdf

How is this all going to effect "me and you"? How many of you play MMOs? You can be absolutely certain that Quality of Service (QoS) charges will begin to be billed to MMO providers. And that means an instant additional fee for your EverCrack or WoW fettish. And what about other online games? A *LOT* of games use semi-standardized protocols developed by GameSpy to enable servers to better communicate what they are doing. The flip side of that is - it is very easy to recognize multiplayer game traffic. And that means easy pickings for QoS fiddling. What can you do if Sprint or AT&T decide to throttle your gaming traffic somewhere up the pipeline from your or the host's connection if the host hasn't paid their extortion money that month? The result will be that all online games that require fair QoS to operate are only able to exist in very tight localities (say good bye to playing with your friends across the country) or they will have to be on every increasingly priced hosted servers like the BF2 ranked (ie: licensed) servers.

Or, say you're not moved by the gamer side of it. What about you feelings regarding independent artists?
http://www.voxunion.com/Independent_Art ... ternet.pdf


Wow, what a great future this tiered crap looks to be... *sigh*


(Andy, you can now tell me how I'm un-American for thinking that everything should be fair...)
User avatar
KCSA_ChickenHead
Chronic gAMER
Chronic gAMER
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 pm


Postby KCSA_ChickenHead on Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:25 pm

Yari wrote:"Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign."

How does this violate my first amendment rights?!?


The "first amendment right" that you will see mentioned in these discussions is not the one most people are familiar with, the US Constitutions First Amendment (on the "Bill of Rights"). What these discussions are about is the "First Amendment Right of the Internet". It is the premise that, in exchange for a data network provider to be given the priviledge to transport public data as part of "the Internet", they are bound to treat all data fairly and to not discriminate against any particular part of it unless otherwise required to by their applicable laws.

"WTF does that mean?" you say? It means: treat every bit of data you are transporting equally.

That's the issue that is at stake. These service providers want to be able to bill content providers extra for particular types of data to be transmitted "as intended".


Yari wrote:It sounds like a good idea to me. Unfortunatly it makes no sense whatsoever. How can they make some sights "work better" than others??? Limit bandwidth for certain sites? In that case, they already do that, websites with lots of money can afford more bandwidth.


Unfortunately, you have been confused about this issue in exactly the way that the telcos and cable companies have hoped you (and everyone else) would. It will not matter if you have a 10mb connection and if the content provider you are connecting to can fill up your 10mb pipe with their large upload capability they have paid for from their provider. What is going to happen is: if the content provider has not paid the high speed "protection" fees to the large Internet backbone providers, then that huge data pipe you and the content holder have paid for will not matter because Sprint or Comcast or AT&T is going to throttle back that connection to a crawl (remember the good old dial up days?). If you go to a Time Warner or other major media outlet's site - that has huge funds to pay these extortion fees - your nice broadband connection will work just like you expect it to. But if you go to these (honestly more interesting and useful) small focus sites (like U-Tube, or Craigs List, etc...) your connection is going to crawl.

When's the last time any of you listened to a private radio station, or watched a public access on TV? For a large portion of the U.S., the answer for that would be either "never" or "not for a very long time". Why? Mainly because there are so few options to do so now. And that is entirely because radio and tv have run private broadcasting off the airways by creating such a high price bar for entry. The Internet is the one place where anyone can go for "free" information from ANYONE. If these telcos have it their way, they'll be able to turn the Internet into the same stagnant forums that they have made radio and television - you'll only be able to get content at a usable level from the select few media outlets.



Probably the most obvious reason that there is something serious going on with all this:

You have the U.S. telcos and cable companies, that have been falling behind the rest of the world technologically at monumental rates for over 10 years, raising their rates astronomically since deregulation in 1996. And they are saying "we don't like the idea of having to play fair".

On the other side, you have organizations and companies that normally are at odds with each other: Microsoft, Google, the ACLU, and on and on. Groups that NEVER agree on anything. And on this topic, they are saying "if we don't require these service providers to play fair - we ALL, including the consumers - are going to be screwed very soon". That should raise a pretty big flag. If you're too lazy to read up on this or are confused by all the jargon. At the very least, look to the companies and content providers you use on a regular basis and see how they are very much against what the telcos want.

Which side are you on, the ones that want to help give you as much variety as possible on a fair and level playing field? Or the ones that wants to bill everyone as much as they can for anything they can conceive?
User avatar
KCSA_ChickenHead
Chronic gAMER
Chronic gAMER
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 pm


Postby Yari on Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:47 pm

Sigh...I hate when we get into this...

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:"Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign."

How does this violate my first amendment rights?!?


The "first amendment right" that you will see mentioned in these discussions is not the one most people are familiar with, the US Constitutions First Amendment (on the "Bill of Rights"). What these discussions are about is the "First Amendment Right of the Internet". It is the premise that, in exchange for a data network provider to be given the priviledge to transport public data as part of "the Internet", they are bound to treat all data fairly and to not discriminate against any particular part of it unless otherwise required to by their applicable laws.


That was low blow dude. They may not teach it in school anymore, but I know what freedom of speech is.

If a corparation owns a data network, it's their freedom of speech that's being violated when they can't decide what and how info gets transfered on their network. Just like it's not against the law for me to shout "White Power!" in my own house, they should be able to decide how their own network operates.

If the internet is owned by companies, how is it public?

What law says we should treat everything fairly?

I like the last part about "don't descriminate unless it's required by law"!!!!

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:"WTF does that mean?" you say? It means: treat every bit of data you are transporting equally.


What about child pornography?

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:That's the issue that is at stake. These service providers want to be able to bill content providers extra for particular types of data to be transmitted "as intended".


That sounds fine to me.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:It sounds like a good idea to me. Unfortunatly it makes no sense whatsoever. How can they make some sights "work better" than others??? Limit bandwidth for certain sites? In that case, they already do that, websites with lots of money can afford more bandwidth.


Unfortunately, you have been confused about this issue in exactly the way that the telcos and cable companies have hoped you (and everyone else) would. It will not matter if you have a 10mb connection and if the content provider you are connecting to can fill up your 10mb pipe with their large upload capability they have paid for from their provider. What is going to happen is: if the content provider has not paid the high speed "protection" fees to the large Internet backbone providers, then that huge data pipe you and the content holder have paid for will not matter because Sprint or Comcast or AT&T is going to throttle back that connection to a crawl (remember the good old dial up days?). If you go to a Time Warner or other major media outlet's site - that has huge funds to pay these extortion fees - your nice broadband connection will work just like you expect it to. But if you go to these (honestly more interesting and useful) small focus sites (like U-Tube, or Craigs List, etc...) your connection is going to crawl.


Insulting my intelligence again...

I understand your point, but what I'm trying to say is, don't they do that already?

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:When's the last time any of you listened to a private radio station, or watched a public access on TV? For a large portion of the U.S., the answer for that would be either "never" or "not for a very long time". Why? Mainly because there are so few options to do so now. And that is entirely because radio and tv have run private broadcasting off the airways by creating such a high price bar for entry. The Internet is the one place where anyone can go for "free" information from ANYONE. If these telcos have it their way, they'll be able to turn the Internet into the same stagnant forums that they have made radio and television - you'll only be able to get content at a usable level from the select few media outlets.


And again...

I agree totally here, there's a lot of private label webcasts, podcasts, audio blogs and whatnot I go to for unique and interesting content.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:Probably the most obvious reason that there is something serious going on with all this:

You have the U.S. telcos and cable companies, that have been falling behind the rest of the world technologically at monumental rates for over 10 years, raising their rates astronomically since deregulation in 1996. And they are saying "we don't like the idea of having to play fair".

On the other side, you have organizations and companies that normally are at odds with each other: Microsoft, Google, the ACLU, and on and on. Groups that NEVER agree on anything. And on this topic, they are saying "if we don't require these service providers to play fair - we ALL, including the consumers - are going to be screwed very soon". That should raise a pretty big flag. If you're too lazy to read up on this or are confused by all the jargon. At the very least, look to the companies and content providers you use on a regular basis and see how they are very much against what the telcos want.


I'm starting to agree with you now. I mean, what telco would approve of Renchan?

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:Which side are you on, the ones that want to help give you as much variety as possible on a fair and level playing field? Or the ones that wants to bill everyone as much as they can for anything they can conceive?


I can't argue with free child porn.
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)


Postby KCSA_ChickenHead on Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:25 pm

Yari wrote:Sigh...I hate when we get into this...


Why? These types of discussion are the very few times that you are acutally required to have a pulse to engage in them on this board (or most other message boards).



Yari wrote:
KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:...
How does this violate my first amendment rights?!?


The "first amendment right" ...


That was low blow dude. They may not teach it in school anymore, but I know what freedom of speech is.


You take offense far too easily. The discussion involved requires a very specific defintion of the concepts invloved. By not specifically outlining them; they will most certainly be misinterpreted. And that is the very crux of this issue - people are being confused and mislead (intentionally). Again, you proved the point. You are stuck on the "I know what freedom of speech is" when the issue at state is *not* about that. It's not about *your* rights, it's about the rights of the shared commons (the Internet).



Yari wrote:If a corparation owns a data network...


Stop right here.

This is where the problem exists - and it is a key point in why you and so many others are being confused. It is NOT "their" network.

Let's explain this:

The massive data network backbones that have been laid across the the country were not put down by private companies for their own use out of their own money. They were granted specific approval to lay those lines and large financial incentives ("payments") to do so by our government. You and I and everyone around you gave the telcos permission to put those lines down and permission to maintain them - for the specific purpose of serving *us* - and we paid them to do it. Those are OUR lines. The telcos have only been entrusted by US for the PRIVILEGE to be the hosting body that services those lines for OUR good use of them.

Those lines are not private property like your TV is. And they are not private property like the private internal networks of a company are. They are public transportation means of a public commons like the radio and tv waves are. The difference is enormous.


And now you know why your following statement is incorrect....

Yari wrote:... it's their freedom of speech that's being violated when they can't decide what and how info gets transfered on their network.


It's not their network, they have never been granted the right(s) you are implying.


Yari wrote:Just like it's not against the law for me to shout "White Power!" in my own house, they should be able to decide how their own network operates.


On their private internal networks, they have every right to dictate how they opperate. On the public commons they have been entrusted to run by us - they do *not* have that right to decide. It is NOT their own network.

Similar to your annalogy, it is the reason why you can not scream out something like "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. You have the freedom to do what you what *in*private*. But once you venture into a setting specifically errected to service the public, you must abide by rules which protect the common well being.



Yari wrote:If the internet is owned by companies, how is it public?


The Internet is NOT owned by companies. The Internet exists solely because we have choosen to allow the transportation services to be built - with our money - on public land.


Yari wrote:What law says we should treat everything fairly?


You feigned insult the last time I mentioned the U.S. Constitution. Are you going to get upset again when I direct you to, at the very least, Amendment 14 of the USC. Follow that up with a heavy dose of social contracts and civil rights. Do you really need this spelled out? I know you don't but you don't leave me with much choice.



Yari wrote:I like the last part about "don't descriminate unless it's required by law"!!!!

...

What about child pornography?


It's good to see you can answer your own questions/statements. That is probably the very intent of such a statement. Treat everything fair unless the act of doing so would violate a specific law to the contrary.


Yari wrote:
KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:That's the issue that is at stake. These service providers want to be able to bill content providers extra for particular types of data to be transmitted "as intended".


That sounds fine to me.


Since you've been deceived regarding the situation; I'm sure it does. If you believe the argument that it somehow costs the telcos more to deliver the data, then it would make sense. Unfortunately, that's not true.



Yari wrote:
KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:It sounds like a good idea to me. Unfortunatly it makes no sense whatsoever. How can they make some sights "work better" than others??? Limit bandwidth for certain sites? In that case, they already do that, websites with lots of money can afford more bandwidth.


Unfortunately, you have been confused about this issue in exactly the way that the telcos and cable companies have hoped you (and everyone else) would. It will not matter if you have a 10mb connection and if the content provider you are connecting to can fill up your 10mb pipe with their large upload capability they have paid for from their provider. What is going to happen is: if the content provider has not paid the high speed "protection" fees to the large Internet backbone providers, then that huge data pipe you and the content holder have paid for will not matter because Sprint or Comcast or AT&T is going to throttle back that connection to a crawl (remember the good old dial up days?). If you go to a Time Warner or other major media outlet's site - that has huge funds to pay these extortion fees - your nice broadband connection will work just like you expect it to. But if you go to these (honestly more interesting and useful) small focus sites (like U-Tube, or Craigs List, etc...) your connection is going to crawl.


Insulting my intelligence again...


Not in the slightest. I am pointing out the realities that you are not aware of - or at the least, are not demonstrating awareness of - existing. None of which is insulting (unless you are are irrationally sensitive) and it is not "intelligence", it is "knowledge" of what is going on which is being addressed.


Yari wrote:I understand your point, but what I'm trying to say is, don't they do that already?


No, they do not.

Pick any server on the Internet. From that server download multiple types of data: text files, images, video, audio, etc. It doesn't matter - you get it at the same speed from that server, and you and the content provider pay the same for the data to cross the Internet.

What "they" want is to be able to change that. "They" want to pick and choose what data requires a special fee to pass by.


Yari wrote:
KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:When's the last time any of you listened to a private radio station... you'll only be able to get content at a usable level from the select few media outlets.


And again...

I agree totally here, there's a lot of private label webcasts, podcasts, audio blogs and whatnot I go to for unique and interesting content.


... and then what happens when, to be able to see/hear those streaming realtime feeds, the provider has to pay extra fees specifically because it is a particular type of data? It doesn't go across the network any differently - a bit is a bit - but the telcos want to pick particular types of data (that are time sensitive) and abuse their entrusted positions for financial gain. With an unquestionable result that huge portions of "independent" content providers will be forced offline.



Yari wrote:I'm starting to agree with you now. I mean, what telco would approve of Renchan?


Congratulations; you taught me a new word today - Lolicon. I think that's going to end up in the "can't forget it even if I wanted to" dustbin in my head. *sigh*

And no, I don't think to many telcos would approve of that. But again, this comes back to the other issue. In the U.S. (and many other places) data like that is illegal. Wether you agree or not, the CPPA and PROTECT are both pretty clear that it is in violation. Since it would be illegal, not only are the telcos not required to "treat it fairly", they are required, if they are aware of (or made aware of) its content, to prevent its transmission.

Yari wrote:
KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:Which side are you on, the ones that want to help give you as much variety as possible on a fair and level playing field? Or the ones that wants to bill everyone as much as they can for anything they can conceive?


I can't argue with free child porn.


Whatever turns your crank.

The issue at stake here though is - should one type of datastream from those servers come down at a different cost than another?

The telcos say yes...
User avatar
KCSA_ChickenHead
Chronic gAMER
Chronic gAMER
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 pm


Postby mofiki on Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:34 am

i can sum up just about all that was just wrote in 1 phrase
the telco's dident pay to lay the backbone its u and I the tax payer that did.

sory just saw that about 20 times in the post
When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability. Image Image
User avatar
mofiki
Sir Camps-a-lot
Sir Camps-a-lot
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: rapid city south dakota


Postby Yari on Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:56 pm

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:Sigh...I hate when we get into this...


Why? These types of discussion are the very few times that you are acutally required to have a pulse to engage in them on this board (or most other message boards).


I was being sarcastic. I actually like debate, but everytime we get into one everyone else seems to comment on how were clogging up the forum.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:
KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:...
How does this violate my first amendment rights?!?


The "first amendment right" ...


That was low blow dude. They may not teach it in school anymore, but I know what freedom of speech is.


You take offense far too easily. The discussion involved requires a very specific defintion of the concepts invloved. By not specifically outlining them; they will most certainly be misinterpreted. And that is the very crux of this issue - people are being confused and mislead (intentionally). Again, you proved the point. You are stuck on the "I know what freedom of speech is" when the issue at state is *not* about that. It's not about *your* rights, it's about the rights of the shared commons (the Internet).


I do take offense easily. Your points are well taken.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:If a corparation owns a data network...


Stop right here.

This is where the problem exists - and it is a key point in why you and so many others are being confused. It is NOT "their" network.

Let's explain this:

The massive data network backbones that have been laid across the the country were not put down by private companies for their own use out of their own money. They were granted specific approval to lay those lines and large financial incentives ("payments") to do so by our government. You and I and everyone around you gave the telcos permission to put those lines down and permission to maintain them - for the specific purpose of serving *us* - and we paid them to do it. Those are OUR lines. The telcos have only been entrusted by US for the PRIVILEGE to be the hosting body that services those lines for OUR good use of them.

Those lines are not private property like your TV is. And they are not private property like the private internal networks of a company are. They are public transportation means of a public commons like the radio and tv waves are. The difference is enormous.


I was under the impression the telcos owned the landlines. Knowing that they don't changes my opinion entirely.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:And now you know why your following statement is incorrect....

Yari wrote:... it's their freedom of speech that's being violated when they can't decide what and how info gets transfered on their network.


It's not their network, they have never been granted the right(s) you are implying.


Yari wrote:Just like it's not against the law for me to shout "White Power!" in my own house, they should be able to decide how their own network operates.


On their private internal networks, they have every right to dictate how they opperate. On the public commons they have been entrusted to run by us - they do *not* have that right to decide. It is NOT their own network.

Similar to your annalogy, it is the reason why you can not scream out something like "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. You have the freedom to do what you what *in*private*. But once you venture into a setting specifically errected to service the public, you must abide by rules which protect the common well being.



Yari wrote:If the internet is owned by companies, how is it public?


The Internet is NOT owned by companies. The Internet exists solely because we have choosen to allow the transportation services to be built - with our money - on public land.


I agree with all the above, now that I know we own the lines.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:What law says we should treat everything fairly?


You feigned insult the last time I mentioned the U.S. Constitution. Are you going to get upset again when I direct you to, at the very least, Amendment 14 of the USC. Follow that up with a heavy dose of social contracts and civil rights. Do you really need this spelled out? I know you don't but you don't leave me with much choice.


I would appreicate your views on Amendment 14, social contracts and civil rights.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:I like the last part about "don't descriminate unless it's required by law"!!!!

...

What about child pornography?


It's good to see you can answer your own questions/statements. That is probably the very intent of such a statement. Treat everything fair unless the act of doing so would violate a specific law to the contrary.


I just got owned here.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:
KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:That's the issue that is at stake. These service providers want to be able to bill content providers extra for particular types of data to be transmitted "as intended".


That sounds fine to me.


Since you've been deceived regarding the situation; I'm sure it does. If you believe the argument that it somehow costs the telcos more to deliver the data, then it would make sense. Unfortunately, that's not true.



Yari wrote:
KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:It sounds like a good idea to me. Unfortunatly it makes no sense whatsoever. How can they make some sights "work better" than others??? Limit bandwidth for certain sites? In that case, they already do that, websites with lots of money can afford more bandwidth.


Unfortunately, you have been confused about this issue in exactly the way that the telcos and cable companies have hoped you (and everyone else) would. It will not matter if you have a 10mb connection and if the content provider you are connecting to can fill up your 10mb pipe with their large upload capability they have paid for from their provider. What is going to happen is: if the content provider has not paid the high speed "protection" fees to the large Internet backbone providers, then that huge data pipe you and the content holder have paid for will not matter because Sprint or Comcast or AT&T is going to throttle back that connection to a crawl (remember the good old dial up days?). If you go to a Time Warner or other major media outlet's site - that has huge funds to pay these extortion fees - your nice broadband connection will work just like you expect it to. But if you go to these (honestly more interesting and useful) small focus sites (like U-Tube, or Craigs List, etc...) your connection is going to crawl.


Insulting my intelligence again...


Not in the slightest. I am pointing out the realities that you are not aware of - or at the least, are not demonstrating awareness of - existing. None of which is insulting (unless you are are irrationally sensitive) and it is not "intelligence", it is "knowledge" of what is going on which is being addressed.


Gotcha, apologies for the sensitivity.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:I understand your point, but what I'm trying to say is, don't they do that already?


No, they do not.

Pick any server on the Internet. From that server download multiple types of data: text files, images, video, audio, etc. It doesn't matter - you get it at the same speed from that server, and you and the content provider pay the same for the data to cross the Internet.

What "they" want is to be able to change that. "They" want to pick and choose what data requires a special fee to pass by.


I was implying that each server you request data from has a different amount of bandwidth, and that the servers can pay for more. I'm completely against them throttling that bandwisth for different data from the same server.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:
KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:When's the last time any of you listened to a private radio station... you'll only be able to get content at a usable level from the select few media outlets.


And again...

I agree totally here, there's a lot of private label webcasts, podcasts, audio blogs and whatnot I go to for unique and interesting content.


... and then what happens when, to be able to see/hear those streaming realtime feeds, the provider has to pay extra fees specifically because it is a particular type of data? It doesn't go across the network any differently - a bit is a bit - but the telcos want to pick particular types of data (that are time sensitive) and abuse their entrusted positions for financial gain. With an unquestionable result that huge portions of "independent" content providers will be forced offline.


Again, totally against this.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:I'm starting to agree with you now. I mean, what telco would approve of Renchan?


Congratulations; you taught me a new word today - Lolicon. I think that's going to end up in the "can't forget it even if I wanted to" dustbin in my head. *sigh*

And no, I don't think to many telcos would approve of that. But again, this comes back to the other issue. In the U.S. (and many other places) data like that is illegal. Wether you agree or not, the CPPA and PROTECT are both pretty clear that it is in violation. Since it would be illegal, not only are the telcos not required to "treat it fairly", they are required, if they are aware of (or made aware of) its content, to prevent its transmission.


I can confirm that they are not preventing it's transmission in any way.

As for it's legal status, it's considered art. Not that I agree with that.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:
Yari wrote:
KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:Which side are you on, the ones that want to help give you as much variety as possible on a fair and level playing field? Or the ones that wants to bill everyone as much as they can for anything they can conceive?


I can't argue with free child porn.


Whatever turns your crank.


I personally find it disturbing.

Whatever floats your boat.

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:The issue at stake here though is - should one type of datastream from those servers come down at a different cost than another?

The telcos say yes...


Sounds like censorship to me, which I'm utterly against.
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)


Postby Yari on Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:02 pm

I just noticed 'Stud started the topic but hasent said a word...
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)


Postby mofiki on Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:17 pm

hehehe
but seriousley look at what they did with voip calls hmm they started free but they found ways around that dident they
When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability. Image Image
User avatar
mofiki
Sir Camps-a-lot
Sir Camps-a-lot
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: rapid city south dakota


Postby KCSA_ChickenHead on Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:01 pm

Yari wrote:I was being sarcastic. I actually like debate, but everytime we get into one everyone else seems to comment on how were clogging up the forum.


Eh, fuck'em!


Yari wrote:I was under the impression the telcos owned the landlines. Knowing that they don't changes my opinion entirely.


It's understandable when an average person doesn't know the details of how the infrastructure was built. But it is really frustrating when our politicians - that gave these telcos our money to do this work - are still confused about this issue. The idiots we've elected don't even remember the dumb things they've done in the past...

Yari wrote:I would appreicate your views on Amendment 14, social contracts and civil rights.


I could ramble for *DAYS* about all the ways that businesses and governments regularly manipulate their policies and proceedures to violate the very principle of equal rights, embodied in numerous parts of our legal doctrine, for all citizens. It's specific cases like this one where I find something focal that I can blow up over...

Yari wrote:I just got owned here.


I had to call you on that one. :)

Yari wrote:I was implying that each server you request data from has a different amount of bandwidth, and that the servers can pay for more. I'm completely against them throttling that bandwisth for different data from the same server.


Yep, that's the misunderstanding most people have. I'm right with you about "if you want more (of any kind of) bandwidth, you pay more for it" rationale. But I don't think I'm crazy to expect that I should get any type of data provided over that bandwith at the same quality of service. And I KNOW that I'm not crazy when I was thinking the same thing those articles point out that, given the possibility for the telcos to do this, it then becomes in their best financial interests to *not* improve the networks - bottlenecks cost nothing to "create" and result in them being able to charge money for them. There's nothing fair for *anyone* about that.

Yari wrote:I'm starting to agree with you now. I mean, what telco would approve of Renchan?
...
I can confirm that they are not preventing it's transmission in any way.


For a situation like that, it's only because someone hasn't made a stink about it yet. Give it time, some bleeding cunt will eventually pick up on it an ruin it for everyone else when they start their letter writing.

Yari wrote:As for it's legal status, it's considered art. Not that I agree with that.


One man's art is a special-interest-group's anathema. With a tool like Ashcroft covering up a statue at the DoJ, it should be pretty clear that your liberal view of what is art is not shared with the power monkeys running this country.

Yari wrote:child porn... I personally find it disturbing.


The child abuse that is almost certainly involved in its production is quite disturbing. And at the other end - what part in a person's mind has to be so severely out of wack that they find such things arrousing? I can understand how just about any fetish appeals to certain types of people - but pedophiles? WTF? I can't even conceive of a serious way in which a mind could be so miswired to find such a thing a form of enjoyment. "Yea!, I'm getting of on the exploitation of a helpless child..." Seriously, WTF?

Yari wrote:Sounds like censorship to me, which I'm utterly against.


That's an inevitable outcome of the practice - you'll start to have to pay more for "allowed, but not some approved of, types of data" (like *legal* porn for example). It's an extortive form of discrimination - censorship at the very heart.
User avatar
KCSA_ChickenHead
Chronic gAMER
Chronic gAMER
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 pm


Postby KCSA_ChickenHead on Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:05 pm

mofiki wrote:i can sum up just about all that was just wrote in 1 phrase
the telco's dident pay to lay the backbone its u and I the tax payer that did.

sory just saw that about 20 times in the post


You're quite right. This is all very long winded. However, it clearly points out the issues involved. People are being mislead - and mislead people make VERY bad decisions that become laws. You need look no farther than the DMCA, SSSCA/CBDTPA, or PATRIOT Act for recent examples of VERY BAD laws (or attempted ones) all made under misinformation.

If I had just said originally what you did with no discourse - someone could just scoff at it saying "he's just being a bitch and doesn't know what he's saying..."
User avatar
KCSA_ChickenHead
Chronic gAMER
Chronic gAMER
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 pm


Postby KCSA_ChickenHead on Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:14 pm

mofiki wrote:hehehe
but seriousley look at what they did with voip calls hmm they started free but they found ways around that dident they


You can still get VOIP service for free. The services that you pay for provide more than just the VOIP service. The big selling point for fee based VOIP services is that they will perform various degrees of VOIP-to-POTS connection so you can make a "VOIP call to a regular phone number". The VOIP software is easy and simple to make, the customers already lease the bandwidth for the calls - so pure VOIP is cheap and that's why it was "free" for a long time. But now that people want the extra services that cost the providers extra money (such as rentered facilities in major cities to make the VOIP-to-POTS transistions), they have to fund those services somehow. And that means the new stuff you have to pay to use.

You can still use something as simple as TeamSpeak or Ventrillo. That's VOIP at it's most basic. All free for the having. There's just none of the bells and whistles that people want (and are usually willing to pay to get).





Now, how this ties in with the issue at hand? Telcos want to be able to charge you extra for the VOIP data if it is not coming from their centers. In other words "sure, you can use our competitors service instead of ours, but you'll have to pay our 'protection tax' for us to let you get it". Or worse, they'll try and block it all together. But at least that extreme has been caught a few times in the past already and been dealt with by the judicial system quite nicely in favor of the consumers.
User avatar
KCSA_ChickenHead
Chronic gAMER
Chronic gAMER
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 pm


Postby Yari on Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:37 pm

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:One man's art is a special-interest-group's anathema. With a tool like Ashcroft covering up a statue at the DoJ, it should be pretty clear that your liberal view of what is art is not shared with the power monkeys running this country.
.


Wait, me and liberal? I'm usually considered a religious right-wing fanatic.



*sigh* I guess I'm really just a "moderate"...
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)


Postby Junglestud on Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:01 am

GREAT debate guys, lots of good information here.

If some don't dig the debate threads, they don't have to read them. They are not going to clog up the forum or whatever, there is tons of available storage/data exchange. Talk it up, it makes for interesting reads. 8)
-Erik

I always have coffee when I watch radar, you know that, everyone knows that!
User avatar
Junglestud
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2756
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Your Neighbor's 'Hood, MD


Postby Yari on Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:17 pm

So I wrote that letter to the senator using the form on the site. I got this back.

Barbara A. Mikulski wrote:Dear Mr. Fike:

Thank you for contacting me in support of network neutrality and free and open access to the Internet. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

I understand your concern that the Internet should not favor certain content or services over others. I believe that the Internet is not only an important tool, but a vital resource. It has allowed millions of Americans to communicate instantly with people around the world. It has put access to libraries of information at everyone's fingertips. The use of the Internet continues to grow, and the ways we use it continue to expand. I want everyone to have the opportunity to tap into this important resource, and do not want to stifle its development or use.

Your views on network neutrality will be very helpful to me as Congress considers this issue. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance to you again in the future.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

P.S. If I can be of further assistance in the future,
please visit my website at http://mikulski.senate.gov
or call my Washington D.C. office at 202-224-4654


Seems pretty generic, I might try writing a more personal message to get a more personal response. If anyone else wrote a letter, post up what you got back, if anything. Although she seems to favor network neutrality, the letter doesnt name any actions she took or votes she made backing up her support.
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)


Postby Junglestud on Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:21 pm

Good point. It does not specifically mention how she feels about the issue, i.e. for or against.

Looks very precanned, and I bet my lunch you will get another one.
-Erik

I always have coffee when I watch radar, you know that, everyone knows that!
User avatar
Junglestud
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2756
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Your Neighbor's 'Hood, MD


Postby Yari on Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:31 pm

If ya'll wanna get serious,

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=675152044966

We could join as Insidegamers.
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)


Postby KCSA_ChickenHead on Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:16 am

Yari wrote:Wait, me and liberal? I'm usually considered a religious right-wing fanatic.


That you may be. However, your view that people should have the right to decide for themselves what are pleasing forms of art, is by definition, a liberal view.
User avatar
KCSA_ChickenHead
Chronic gAMER
Chronic gAMER
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 pm


Postby KCSA_ChickenHead on Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:20 am

Unfortunately, those are almost always the types of responses you are going to receive. The only representatives that will publicly come out prior to passings of votes and state what they really feel about a situation are the ones that are specifically pushing one side or the other. The rest of them just stand around saying "I'll take your thoughts, and these lobbyists' money, and vote for whichever side makes me feel better..."
User avatar
KCSA_ChickenHead
Chronic gAMER
Chronic gAMER
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 pm


Postby mofiki on Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:48 pm

i so say that they should pass a law banning lobbiest's
When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability. Image Image
User avatar
mofiki
Sir Camps-a-lot
Sir Camps-a-lot
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: rapid city south dakota


Postby Yari on Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:12 pm

It would probably be easier just to make a lot of money and do the same thing. Which I bet is what usaully happens.
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)


Postby KCSA_ChickenHead on Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:34 am

mofiki wrote:i so say that they should pass a law banning lobbiest's


That's not to far from the idea of the bills that are constantly brought up to stop campaign funding. Or more specifically, to create a public fund that all interested parties are allowed to draw funds from to campaign. Thereby eleminating the "we paid for you to get elected, now do some dirty deeds for us by passing such and such laws...". Of course, there's not more than 2 or 3 percent of the representatives in congress that are brave enough to go that route. They'd actually have to serve the people then...
User avatar
KCSA_ChickenHead
Chronic gAMER
Chronic gAMER
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 pm


Postby mofiki on Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:18 pm

just like they should do away with the electoral colage or however you spell it but it makes no cense
When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability. Image Image
User avatar
mofiki
Sir Camps-a-lot
Sir Camps-a-lot
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: rapid city south dakota


Postby Yari on Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:01 pm

Image
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)


Postby mofiki on Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:33 am

dont get me wrong but do they not charge you for excessive usage any way. like with your ul/dl i only get 30gig's a month then it's 1.50 pounds a gig after that rounding up to the gig.
When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability. Image Image
User avatar
mofiki
Sir Camps-a-lot
Sir Camps-a-lot
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: rapid city south dakota


Postby KCSA_ChickenHead on Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:23 pm

mofiki wrote:dont get me wrong but do they not charge you for excessive usage any way. like with your ul/dl i only get 30gig's a month then it's 1.50 pounds a gig after that rounding up to the gig.


You are missing the entire point of what has been said above. Stop, re-read it, think about it.

It doesn't matter if you pay for 30gigs a month at speed X. And if you want to download those 30gigs from a content provider that is more than capable of providing that data at your maximum speed (X). If the network providers decide that your type of ones and zeros is not as important as someone else's, then you will not get your speed X - even though there is no technical reason why not. The only reason will be - the content provider you are trying to get that data from will not be capable of negotiating deals with every single network provider along the route from them to you and paying them off to let the data flow as fast as it should be able to flow.
User avatar
KCSA_ChickenHead
Chronic gAMER
Chronic gAMER
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 pm


Postby KCSA_ChickenHead on Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:50 pm

Yari, please chop up that image or post it as a link. Embedding it in this thread is breaking the wrapping of the posts - it's too wide.

In reference to that image's article - the sideband rebuttle is rediculous:

"The exclusionary behavior ... doesn't happen in the market place today."

This is only true because the behavior only became possible a short time ago with the changing of the old telecomunication bill referenced in several of these discussions. The new rewrite and expiration of old bills opened the doors to this type of abuse. And to top it off, the network providers have gone on record saying they are GOING TO commit this abuse of power. They are only biding their time till their lawyers tell them the smoke has cleared and all the pleebs are paying attention to something else in a few weeks.

The FedEx vs UPS comparison is junk.

That situation would only be applicible if everyone in the USA was capable of obtaining every type of Internet Access possible: dial up, DSL (all major variants), Cable, Satellite, and Fiber. And have several of those options available by multiple providers to ensure fair market practicies and competative behavior. As it stands right now, only a few percent (far below 10%) of all USA households have such "luxuries". For the rest of the nation, they are under the thumb of monopolistic network providers.

To use the flawed comparison - it would be as if FedEx had exclusive deals to deliver to people in New York. It doesn't matter how expensive FedEx is over UPS, if you wanted something to go to New York, you'd have to use FedEx. That's how the Internet for the vast majority of the USA is today.

Packets timeout and you get no explaination?

That's not true at all. There are often several tell tale signals, you just have to be a bit brighter than Tom there to understand the signals.

Victoria Secret holds an online event and E-mail doesn't get through?

First off: not going to happen. Stable E-mail servers are not dependent on network congestion and are fully capable of dealing with network traffic. Can't get the message out *right*now*? No problem, try again in a few hours. E-mail is a hell of a lot more robust than panic demand services like live online events. If the live online event got so congested to be able to shut down E-mail, the live event wouldn't be working either. Tom doesn't seem to understand basic networking principles.

Victoria Secret doesn't pay extra for all that bandwidth used?

That's right - the millions of customers who subscribe for broadband access DO PAY EXTRA for all that bandwidth. If all they wanted was E-mail, they'd have dial up. It's not the content providers causing all the traffic, it's all the content consumers that create it. And surprise surprise, they DO PAY FOR IT already. Tome doesn't seem to understand basic networking principles.

Phone companies *could* give DSL to everyone, not just those who pay for it? That's an artificial constraint?

Nope. The cost of the DSL access is being paid for by those who are using it. If it went to everyone for free - who would pay for it? Tom's pushing the cart before the jackass and doesn't seem to understand basic networking principles.

Again, he makes the same mistake implying the content providers are the cause for the network congestion. It doesn't matter if Google, or Microsoft, or Victoria Secret put 200 terrabytes of free for all data on their webservices. If no content consumers request the data - there is NO network traffic. Traffic is caused 100% by the consumers (you, me, and all of us on this board). And we already pay for that traffic. Tom, is an idiot that repeats himself.

He almost comes to his senses with his last line:

"As the Internet chokes on multimedia streams requiring isochronous delivery, you will see the wisdom of charging users higher rates for heavier freight."

Very good Tom, you are finally getting it - the USERS, the people that subscribe for the dial up, DSL, Cable, Fiber, etc are the ones that pay for the data that they specifically want to get. If they want to get 3 MB/s of E-mail. That's their choice. If they want to get 100 MB/s of HD video. That's their choice. And they pay for it (as they already do) with their teired level of connectivity access.

The additional tiered level of service proposed is entirely counter intuitive to such logic.

Tom Halfhill doesn't have a clue about what he is saying.
User avatar
KCSA_ChickenHead
Chronic gAMER
Chronic gAMER
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 pm


Postby Yari on Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:52 pm

I don't really understand all this technical stuff. I see it as a simple issue of ownership. If the public owns the data lines, they have absolute controll over how it's used. That's why I support net neutrality, and because I think it will lead to private landlines, more competition, and lower prices for consumers.
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)


Postby Yari on Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:44 pm

KCSA_ChickenHead wrote:Yari, please chop up that image or post it as a link.


no
User avatar
Yari
Digital Dirty Harry
Digital Dirty Harry
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Elevatropolis (There is no left side!!!)



Return to General Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron