Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Not with unlimited bandwidth its not. If they went old-school AOL and charged a person by the minute/GB then limits on specific web sites would take care of themselves.
Hate to quote myself but...

Charging by the minute/GB/whatever would also make people more vigilant about controlling their networks... which would make that rule that Germany passed completely unnecessary. When shit is relatively free, no one respects it.
Uh... no.  ISP's make enough money as it is.  To then make it so they limit bandwidth to sites depending on how much a site pays them to connect to them is just highway robbery.

Harmor mentioned "anemic growth".  That would occur if ISP's were allowed to negate net neutrality.

So, having the FCC ensure that net neutrality remains in place is a good thing.  It would also be nice if they outlawed bandwidth caps, because they are entirely unnecessary for our system.
I personally wouldn't say no to that [/grumble]
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not with unlimited bandwidth its not. If they went old-school AOL and charged a person by the minute/GB then limits on specific web sites would take care of themselves.
Hate to quote myself but...

Charging by the minute/GB/whatever would also make people more vigilant about controlling their networks... which would make that rule that Germany passed completely unnecessary. When shit is relatively free, no one respects it.
Uh... no.  ISP's make enough money as it is.  To then make it so they limit bandwidth to sites depending on how much a site pays them to connect to them is just highway robbery.

Harmor mentioned "anemic growth".  That would occur if ISP's were allowed to negate net neutrality.

So, having the FCC ensure that net neutrality remains in place is a good thing.  It would also be nice if they outlawed bandwidth caps, because they are entirely unnecessary for our system.
I said nothing about charging sites for their traffic. I said that the end user, the consumer, should pay for the bandwidth they use rather than paying a flat monthly fee. Why am I paying the same rate as someone that leaves his BitTorrent up 24/7? The stress I put on the system is far less.

To take it further with an analogy, if my local government has a choice between charging a toll on a bridge through town or imposing a tax on everyone living in the town, which is more fair? I say it's more fair to charge a toll on those that actually use the bridge to pay for its upkeep.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-19 21:49:59)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

To take it further with an analogy, if my local government has a choice between charging a toll on a bridge through town or imposing a tax on everyone living in the town, which is more fair? I say it's more fair to charge a toll on those that actually use the bridge to pay for its upkeep.
But then the bridge never gets built because everyone says they'll take the long way round and not pay, business goes elsewhere etc.

And why would you want a bridge through your town ?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
mikkel
Member
+383|6572

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Hate to quote myself but...

Charging by the minute/GB/whatever would also make people more vigilant about controlling their networks... which would make that rule that Germany passed completely unnecessary. When shit is relatively free, no one respects it.
Uh... no.  ISP's make enough money as it is.  To then make it so they limit bandwidth to sites depending on how much a site pays them to connect to them is just highway robbery.

Harmor mentioned "anemic growth".  That would occur if ISP's were allowed to negate net neutrality.

So, having the FCC ensure that net neutrality remains in place is a good thing.  It would also be nice if they outlawed bandwidth caps, because they are entirely unnecessary for our system.
I said nothing about charging sites for their traffic. I said that the end user, the consumer, should pay for the bandwidth they use rather than paying a flat monthly fee. Why am I paying the same rate as someone that leaves his BitTorrent up 24/7? The stress I put on the system is far less.

To take it further with an analogy, if my local government has a choice between charging a toll on a bridge through town or imposing a tax on everyone living in the town, which is more fair? I say it's more fair to charge a toll on those that actually use the bridge to pay for its upkeep.
We've been over this before, but I think illustration is in order.

Notice all the stuff about 3G data plans being limited, as well as limits on cable and DSL connections? In almost all cases, the plans involved are priced as they were before the limitations; you're just getting less for your money. If strict consumption-based plans were in any way a viable way for an ISP to do business, don't you think that they would have done it by now? The fact of the matter is that while ISPs complain about the "3%" of users that they feel are generating too much traffic, they neglect to mention how much of a killing they make off of selling completely overdimensioned products to the remaining 97%.

Any ISP moving to a pay-by-the-bit concept would have to enact atrociously high pricing to compensate for the $50 they just lost from grandma who is responsible for a couple of cents worth of infrastructure and network transit costs every month. It'd be instant bankruptcy. You may think that ISPs are being "unfair" to you when they sell you their plans, but rest assured that you would be paying at least what you're paying now, if not more, should your wish come true. You aren't losing anything.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Hate to quote myself but...

Charging by the minute/GB/whatever would also make people more vigilant about controlling their networks... which would make that rule that Germany passed completely unnecessary. When shit is relatively free, no one respects it.
Uh... no.  ISP's make enough money as it is.  To then make it so they limit bandwidth to sites depending on how much a site pays them to connect to them is just highway robbery.

Harmor mentioned "anemic growth".  That would occur if ISP's were allowed to negate net neutrality.

So, having the FCC ensure that net neutrality remains in place is a good thing.  It would also be nice if they outlawed bandwidth caps, because they are entirely unnecessary for our system.
I said nothing about charging sites for their traffic. I said that the end user, the consumer, should pay for the bandwidth they use rather than paying a flat monthly fee. Why am I paying the same rate as someone that leaves his BitTorrent up 24/7? The stress I put on the system is far less.

To take it further with an analogy, if my local government has a choice between charging a toll on a bridge through town or imposing a tax on everyone living in the town, which is more fair? I say it's more fair to charge a toll on those that actually use the bridge to pay for its upkeep.
Well, my ISP already charges for different tiers of bandwidth.  There are no bandwidth caps, but I do pay according to the data rate maximum I want to have.

So basically, I'm already paying for the amount that I use, although charging by megabyte of data downloaded is ridiculous.  Charging by data rate makes far more sense.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6519|San Diego, CA, USA
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6539|Mountains of NC

They are aiming at going for state taxes .... with in certain states there are counties that have a higher state tax then other the rest of the state
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6519|San Diego, CA, USA
Update: Uncle Sam Wants You to Have an Online ID

I wonder if this this a way for them to have a 'national id card'???
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|6456|England

Harmor wrote:

More: Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism

Guys...they could be monitoring bf2s....
well if they are i said  " fuck you " to them!
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6519|San Diego, CA, USA
Update: 'Perfect Citizen' Program Places 'Sensors' Throughout Web

via http://www.drudgereport.com/

---

Should we worry?  Is this the government taking proactive measures to protect us from digital harm or is this a domestic spying program?
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|6456|England

pace51 wrote:

Actually, the liberals would probably be in favour of allowing us too have internet freedoms. They're very lenient.
Why is that a bad thing at all?  who the fuck are the government to fuckin tell us,  you can do this you can't do that ! 

We should be telling them what to do, not the other way around.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

LostFate wrote:

pace51 wrote:

Actually, the liberals would probably be in favour of allowing us too have internet freedoms. They're very lenient.
Why is that a bad thing at all?  who the fuck are the government to fuckin tell us,  you can do this you can't do that ! 

We should be telling them what to do, not the other way around.
You obviously have a lot to learn about the desired govt dependency of liberals. Individualism and liberalism do not walk hand in hand.
mikkel
Member
+383|6572

Harmor wrote:

Update: 'Perfect Citizen' Program Places 'Sensors' Throughout Web

via http://www.drudgereport.com/

---

Should we worry?  Is this the government taking proactive measures to protect us from digital harm or is this a domestic spying program?
We should absolutely worry when an agency such as the NSA, with its history of unlawful and unconstitutional domestic spying and immunity deals, is put in charge of what seems to be a vaguely defined IDS/IPS program monitoring privately owned domestic networks. If there is, as the article claims, a multi-billion dollar bag of money to fund this project, surely this money could fund the same effort under a separate agency with more thorough oversight. It seems like all of the plausible choices for taking on a task such as this have fallen under the purview of the newly created United States Cyber Command, conveniently lead by the director of the NSA.

This is definitely not the kind of program that should be shoehorned into an agency that has no business running it.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard