I dont see a BF2s icon there >_<
Seriously, I doubt this will ever happen, and if it does....there will always be people who can get around it.
Seriously, I doubt this will ever happen, and if it does....there will always be people who can get around it.
i was looking at that girl's tits/loving her accent
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
2tuff wrote:
I dont see a BF2s icon there >_<
Seriously, I doubt this will ever happen, and if it does....there will always be people who can get around it.
haffeysucks wrote:
i was looking at that girl's tits/loving her accent
Last edited by Eye-GiZzLe (2008-06-01 12:00:07)
It'll never happen, you'll get ISP's who won't do that. I think the ISP bznz is too competitive to do shit as extreme as that. Although these days alot of corporations prefer to work together and screw the customer rather than be competitive against each other. You know, like how they fix prices and artificially raise them and shit.
I don't support "net neutrality". It is just like "free trade" laws. It is a misnomer. You cannot legislate "neutrality".
Allow the ISPs to do whatever they want. Not all will do this because they want an edge above the others.
Allow the ISPs to do whatever they want. Not all will do this because they want an edge above the others.
Basically all this will do will kill all large ISP's, everyone will switch to smaller ISP's who will make a killing.
Are you aware of how monopolistic most telecom markets are? Look at how shitty Comcast is.paul386 wrote:
I don't support "net neutrality". It is just like "free trade" laws. It is a misnomer. You cannot legislate "neutrality".
Allow the ISPs to do whatever they want. Not all will do this because they want an edge above the others.
The problem with this logic is that telecom services are very expensive to run. A very limited number of companies are in this market, and there are mergers all the time. We've seen it with cell service, TV, and internet all the same.
It's not very realistic to assume that competition alone will support neutrality. This is why legislation must be passed.
That's a scary thought.
Robot Nixon does not approve of Net Neutrality
I, along with the internet, would declare jihad on the ISPs if this happened. And Congress, too!
cut off the OP's internet.
The cost of entry is has nothing to do with it moron. It is FCC that has caused that.Turquoise wrote:
Are you aware of how monopolistic most telecom markets are? Look at how shitty Comcast is.paul386 wrote:
I don't support "net neutrality". It is just like "free trade" laws. It is a misnomer. You cannot legislate "neutrality".
Allow the ISPs to do whatever they want. Not all will do this because they want an edge above the others.
The problem with this logic is that telecom services are very expensive to run. A very limited number of companies are in this market, and there are mergers all the time. We've seen it with cell service, TV, and internet all the same.
It's not very realistic to assume that competition alone will support neutrality. This is why legislation must be passed.
Indeed.HurricaИe wrote:
I, along with the internet, would declare jihad on the ISPs if this happened. And Congress, too!
If companies are effectively price fixing future schemes they are already breaking the law. However I agree there needs to be legislation.Turquoise wrote:
Are you aware of how monopolistic most telecom markets are? Look at how shitty Comcast is.paul386 wrote:
I don't support "net neutrality". It is just like "free trade" laws. It is a misnomer. You cannot legislate "neutrality".
Allow the ISPs to do whatever they want. Not all will do this because they want an edge above the others.
The problem with this logic is that telecom services are very expensive to run. A very limited number of companies are in this market, and there are mergers all the time. We've seen it with cell service, TV, and internet all the same.
It's not very realistic to assume that competition alone will support neutrality. This is why legislation must be passed.
Essentially your idea is correct, however, if a small ISP gets a huge influx of customers, your speeds are going to be terrible for quite a while until their infrastruture gets to the point where it can properly support its customer base. Essentially you would end up raising a small company to a large, replacing the one everyone abandoned, ending up back where you started.Vilham wrote:
Basically all this will do will kill all large ISP's, everyone will switch to smaller ISP's who will make a killing.
That was a very uncharacteristic response, paul. I didn't have the intention of touching a nerve, but I guess I did, eh?paul386 wrote:
The cost of entry is has nothing to do with it moron. It is FCC that has caused that.Turquoise wrote:
Are you aware of how monopolistic most telecom markets are? Look at how shitty Comcast is.paul386 wrote:
I don't support "net neutrality". It is just like "free trade" laws. It is a misnomer. You cannot legislate "neutrality".
Allow the ISPs to do whatever they want. Not all will do this because they want an edge above the others.
The problem with this logic is that telecom services are very expensive to run. A very limited number of companies are in this market, and there are mergers all the time. We've seen it with cell service, TV, and internet all the same.
It's not very realistic to assume that competition alone will support neutrality. This is why legislation must be passed.
The FCC is certainly a problematic institution that I think we can agree needs to be reformed or disbanded, but the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was originally intended to open up competition in the telecom markets. It didn't happen, because several telecoms had existing regional monopolies that they wanted to protect.
If anything, telecoms have no interest in opening up competition, even if it means monopolizing infrastructures partially paid for by tax money. You're not going to see net neutrality promoted by any major telecom because of the money to be made with the proposed tiered quality of service plans that will result from the complete lack of neutrality.
I'm sure the president won't like paying for his porn.
The one ISP who doesn't do that will get all the business, so who's going to do that?
I doubt this will happen... If it does, there will be quite the uproar of internet users. But I have heard of "Internet 2.0" - much higher speeds, extra restrictions and internet police.
edit:
Paul: The entry costs are really high. How the hell are you going to wire the entire country on your own? One company does it, and everyone else pays it. It's BT here. All ISPs go through BT.
-konfusion
edit:
Paul: The entry costs are really high. How the hell are you going to wire the entire country on your own? One company does it, and everyone else pays it. It's BT here. All ISPs go through BT.
-konfusion
Last edited by konfusion (2008-06-01 15:18:16)
konfusion wrote:
nternet police.
-konfusion
Isnt that the girl from the Athene videos
Last edited by SgtSlutter (2008-06-01 15:30:27)
That woman has epic titties.
I approve.
I approve.
What would you prefer as an alternative?FallenMorgan wrote:
Corporations are very evil, in my opinion.
imortal wrote:
What would you prefer as an alternative?FallenMorgan wrote:
Corporations are very evil, in my opinion.
