the two issues are : a) piracy and b) data volume. I don't see how either is defensible and the real cause motivating the movement combines both of them.
That just seems to cut off your nose to spite your face. Mass-torrenters are a minority of internet users.
Not to mention that companies like Comcast have essential monopolies, especially in more rural areas like W. Mass. We pay what they say we pay, there really isn't much more to it. They do what they want, and we go along.
The whole thing is much more complex, and copyright infringement is a small but easily strawman'd defense.
the lack of competition in the IP market is a big problem. It would benefit from some government regulation to open up competition.
The big problem is that the government doesn't want to pay for the infrastructure. They want industry to pay for the infrastructure. IP and cable companies don't want to pay for public infrastructure, so they won't lay fiber or cable until they're assured that their investment isn't going to be nationalized.
It's a sticky problem, and made worse by the fact that cable companies have really worked to wind state and city governments around their fingers.
Verizon laid FIOS through cambridge up to about three blocks from my house. Now comcast is suing them because they had some guarantee from the city back when they laid their own cable. It's a mess and ad-hoc civil court decisions are making development of a competitive infrastructure difficult and uneven.
The system we have now isn't great, but insisting that every human has a right to unlimited high-speed internet without addressing the money, infrastructure and business concerns isn't really a legitimate position to take IMO.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
It's about the fact that it creates an undue burden on low-income individuals to remain competitive in the current environment. Ever tried to find a job without internet in the last 5 years?
low-end internet usage would be much cheaper if it were allowed to be metered or prioritized.
like
if you are paying for internet to search for jobs and send resumes, you are subsidizing the guy who's constantly pumping torrents over his connection. you two are paying the same amount.
except that people tend to use the internet for more than one thing
the internet's kind of famous for that
having multiple uses
sure
but Crow's assertion was that low-income people would be hobbled in their job hunts by per-use cost structures for internets
and i pointed out that these poor people would be paying less for the kind of net use he's talking about under a metered, non "net neutral" system.
As many people have pointed out, you can just drop the whole "non-net neutral" part and get the same effect. Metered plans do not conflict with net neutrality as long as all traffic is metered the same.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
The system we have now isn't great, but insisting that every human has a right to unlimited high-speed internet without addressing the money, infrastructure and business concerns isn't really a legitimate position to take IMO.
It does if you're Carl Bildt, Swedish foreign minister and ex-PM!
Echo on
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
the two issues are : a) piracy and b) data volume. I don't see how either is defensible and the real cause motivating the movement combines both of them.
That just seems to cut off your nose to spite your face. Mass-torrenters are a minority of internet users.
Not to mention that companies like Comcast have essential monopolies, especially in more rural areas like W. Mass. We pay what they say we pay, there really isn't much more to it. They do what they want, and we go along.
The whole thing is much more complex, and copyright infringement is a small but easily strawman'd defense.
the lack of competition in the IP market is a big problem. It would benefit from some government regulation to open up competition.
The big problem is that the government doesn't want to pay for the infrastructure. They want industry to pay for the infrastructure. IP and cable companies don't want to pay for public infrastructure, so they won't lay fiber or cable until they're assured that their investment isn't going to be nationalized.
It's a sticky problem, and made worse by the fact that cable companies have really worked to wind state and city governments around their fingers.
Verizon laid FIOS through cambridge up to about three blocks from my house. Now comcast is suing them because they had some guarantee from the city back when they laid their own cable. It's a mess and ad-hoc civil court decisions are making development of a competitive infrastructure difficult and uneven.
The system we have now isn't great, but insisting that every human has a right to unlimited high-speed internet without addressing the money, infrastructure and business concerns isn't really a legitimate position to take IMO.
Allowing all carriers access to the last mile of that cable would get rid of that kind of legal bullshit (with verizon vs comcast) That's another thing that has to happen, imo. So that whoever lays the cable, that last mile to the actual home or business is up for grabs to whoever can offer the best prices/service. So everyone is fighting over customers in the way it should be.
the two issues are : a) piracy and b) data volume. I don't see how either is defensible and the real cause motivating the movement combines both of them.
That just seems to cut off your nose to spite your face. Mass-torrenters are a minority of internet users.
Not to mention that companies like Comcast have essential monopolies, especially in more rural areas like W. Mass. We pay what they say we pay, there really isn't much more to it. They do what they want, and we go along.
The whole thing is much more complex, and copyright infringement is a small but easily strawman'd defense.
the lack of competition in the IP market is a big problem. It would benefit from some government regulation to open up competition.
The big problem is that the government doesn't want to pay for the infrastructure. They want industry to pay for the infrastructure. IP and cable companies don't want to pay for public infrastructure, so they won't lay fiber or cable until they're assured that their investment isn't going to be nationalized.
It's a sticky problem, and made worse by the fact that cable companies have really worked to wind state and city governments around their fingers.
Verizon laid FIOS through cambridge up to about three blocks from my house. Now comcast is suing them because they had some guarantee from the city back when they laid their own cable. It's a mess and ad-hoc civil court decisions are making development of a competitive infrastructure difficult and uneven.
The system we have now isn't great, but insisting that every human has a right to unlimited high-speed internet without addressing the money, infrastructure and business concerns isn't really a legitimate position to take IMO.
Hurray for corruption.
I swear Sweden is the only country where I trust my internet infrastructure to be sound. One of my friends here in Sweden has a better connection (meaning faster, and at home) than the entirety of the University of Bristol - probably the entirety of England to be honest.
the two issues are : a) piracy and b) data volume. I don't see how either is defensible and the real cause motivating the movement combines both of them.
That just seems to cut off your nose to spite your face. Mass-torrenters are a minority of internet users.
Not to mention that companies like Comcast have essential monopolies, especially in more rural areas like W. Mass. We pay what they say we pay, there really isn't much more to it. They do what they want, and we go along.
The whole thing is much more complex, and copyright infringement is a small but easily strawman'd defense.
the lack of competition in the IP market is a big problem. It would benefit from some government regulation to open up competition.
The big problem is that the government doesn't want to pay for the infrastructure. They want industry to pay for the infrastructure. IP and cable companies don't want to pay for public infrastructure, so they won't lay fiber or cable until they're assured that their investment isn't going to be nationalized.
It's a sticky problem, and made worse by the fact that cable companies have really worked to wind state and city governments around their fingers.
Verizon laid FIOS through cambridge up to about three blocks from my house. Now comcast is suing them because they had some guarantee from the city back when they laid their own cable. It's a mess and ad-hoc civil court decisions are making development of a competitive infrastructure difficult and uneven.
The system we have now isn't great, but insisting that every human has a right to unlimited high-speed internet without addressing the money, infrastructure and business concerns isn't really a legitimate position to take IMO.
And the root of the issue is the privileged position that our government gives to entities like Comcast. You protect your friends, and when your friends are lining your pockets with lobbying and campaign donations...well.
If Comcast didn't spend the amount they did on lobbying, they'd be able to offer a cheaper service. The system is designed to protect the status-quo, and change is directly hobbled by everyone involved.
The Crowing One on
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
You know what's a much bigger bandwidth suck than peer to peer file swapping?
Those fucking illegal streaming video sites that every high school and college student is in to now. Piracy has gotten a little too hard and a little too risky when the goal is just to watch seasons of a TV show or some movie and you can do that on a site that's sort of like Youtube. That shit is so much more popular than bittorrent at this point.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
Metered billing doesn't have to do with net neutrality until you start getting into ridiculously inflated price per mb(or whatever measurement) to the point where the FCC might cap it. So it doesn't have to do with net neutrality unless the ISP decides it wants to institute metered billing so that it can overcharge everyone to the point where regulatory bodies find that they have to get involved.
It doesn't have to do with net neutrality. The biggest (arguably) part of net neutrality is ISPs getting regulated as Common Carriers which is what they fucking are. They'd like to pretend they're not, but they're transporting goods only because they've been subsidized and licensed by the government and there must be oversight when it comes to how they handle the bits and bytes that go across their lines. So that they don't go doublecharging people (like some have mentioned/wanted/tried to) and so they don't go mitigating a competitor's traffic in favor of their own (think netflix vs some ISPs bullshit movie thing they decide to release on the internet, I'm looking at you, comcast.
There are other elements, but that's the chief one on the table, to my mind.
Meaning the subsidies go to improving the infrastructure and making certain that the monopolies and duopolies price themselves fairly so that everyday joe can access this amazing resource for information/employment/economic stimulation.
Edit: Not sure how that last bit got placed out of order, my apologies. It still sort of makes sense.
I'm okay with forcing IP's to allow open access to their networks. I don't really think that they should be able to lock down competing services on a semi-public infrastructure.
I just don't care for some of the other aspects of the net neutrality cause.
You know what's a much bigger bandwidth suck than peer to peer file swapping?
Those fucking illegal streaming video sites that every high school and college student is in to now. Piracy has gotten a little too hard and a little too risky when the goal is just to watch seasons of a TV show or some movie and you can do that on a site that's sort of like Youtube. That shit is so much more popular than bittorrent at this point.
I have a theory that the only reason they're ridiculously popular is because they don't realise that streaming is equally as illegal as "downloading".
They don't realise that they have to download the stream data to be able to watch it. I've had to tell a lot of my uni friends this, I don't think they fully believe me.
Metered billing doesn't have to do with net neutrality until you start getting into ridiculously inflated price per mb(or whatever measurement) to the point where the FCC might cap it. So it doesn't have to do with net neutrality unless the ISP decides it wants to institute metered billing so that it can overcharge everyone to the point where regulatory bodies find that they have to get involved.
It doesn't have to do with net neutrality. The biggest (arguably) part of net neutrality is ISPs getting regulated as Common Carriers which is what they fucking are. They'd like to pretend they're not, but they're transporting goods only because they've been subsidized and licensed by the government and there must be oversight when it comes to how they handle the bits and bytes that go across their lines. So that they don't go doublecharging people (like some have mentioned/wanted/tried to) and so they don't go mitigating a competitor's traffic in favor of their own (think netflix vs some ISPs bullshit movie thing they decide to release on the internet, I'm looking at you, comcast.
There are other elements, but that's the chief one on the table, to my mind.
Meaning the subsidies go to improving the infrastructure and making certain that the monopolies and duopolies price themselves fairly so that everyday joe can access this amazing resource for information/employment/economic stimulation.
Edit: Not sure how that last bit got placed out of order, my apologies. It still sort of makes sense.
I'm okay with forcing IP's to allow open access to their networks. I don't really think that they should be able to lock down competing services on a semi-public infrastructure.
I just don't care for some of the other aspects of the net neutrality cause.
I mean, I think standing up for the little guy every once in awhile is worth it, regardless of the cost to corporations. Hell, I like the original Corporation law in the US: You form a corporation for a specific purpose (Imma gonna build a bridge), you complete the project and then your charter expires.
The Crowing One on
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Metered billing doesn't have to do with net neutrality until you start getting into ridiculously inflated price per mb(or whatever measurement) to the point where the FCC might cap it. So it doesn't have to do with net neutrality unless the ISP decides it wants to institute metered billing so that it can overcharge everyone to the point where regulatory bodies find that they have to get involved.
It doesn't have to do with net neutrality. The biggest (arguably) part of net neutrality is ISPs getting regulated as Common Carriers which is what they fucking are. They'd like to pretend they're not, but they're transporting goods only because they've been subsidized and licensed by the government and there must be oversight when it comes to how they handle the bits and bytes that go across their lines. So that they don't go doublecharging people (like some have mentioned/wanted/tried to) and so they don't go mitigating a competitor's traffic in favor of their own (think netflix vs some ISPs bullshit movie thing they decide to release on the internet, I'm looking at you, comcast.
There are other elements, but that's the chief one on the table, to my mind.
Meaning the subsidies go to improving the infrastructure and making certain that the monopolies and duopolies price themselves fairly so that everyday joe can access this amazing resource for information/employment/economic stimulation.
Edit: Not sure how that last bit got placed out of order, my apologies. It still sort of makes sense.
I'm okay with forcing IP's to allow open access to their networks. I don't really think that they should be able to lock down competing services on a semi-public infrastructure.
I just don't care for some of the other aspects of the net neutrality cause.
That's the cause. That and opening up last mile fiber/cable for better competition. I think too many pirates/idiots have been talking the shit with you in earshot. They're a loud minority and they can shut their faces.
I'm okay with forcing IP's to allow open access to their networks. I don't really think that they should be able to lock down competing services on a semi-public infrastructure.
I just don't care for some of the other aspects of the net neutrality cause.
That's the only aspect of the net neutrality cause! People might also want unlimited access, but that's a different matter entirely.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
I have a theory that the only reason they're ridiculously popular is because they don't realise that streaming is equally as illegal as "downloading".
They don't realise that they have to download the stream data to be able to watch it. I've had to tell a lot of my uni friends this, I don't think they fully believe me.
Some fuckwit Swedish ECPAT-humping politicians here in Sweden wanted it to be illegal to look at child porn, because some people were just fapping to it on 4chan and never saving it.
That is the completely wrong target to aim at.
Echo on
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
As long as we can all agree it should be illegal for comcast to charge me more to access time.com than newsweek.com, I think we agree on the most important aspect of net neutrality.
It's about the fact that it creates an undue burden on low-income individuals to remain competitive in the current environment. Ever tried to find a job without internet in the last 5 years?
low-end internet usage would be much cheaper if it were allowed to be metered or prioritized.
like
if you are paying for internet to search for jobs and send resumes, you are subsidizing the guy who's constantly pumping torrents over his connection. you two are paying the same amount.
except that people tend to use the internet for more than one thing
the internet's kind of famous for that
having multiple uses
sure
but Crow's assertion was that low-income people would be hobbled in their job hunts by per-use cost structures for internets
and i pointed out that these poor people would be paying less for the kind of net use he's talking about under a metered, non "net neutral" system.
Perhaps this would be true in an ideal world, where the formula for pricing was (price paid by consumers at the old, flat rate) / (relative usage of individual customer). But a quick look at the metered billing tiers implemented in test markets by Time Warner and others shows that even the low-end users end up getting an extraordinarily raw deal.
As long as we can all agree it should be illegal for comcast to charge me more to access time.com than newsweek.com, I think we agree on the most important aspect of net neutrality.
I'm not sure I agree, actually. I don't think I know enough about how the internet works to form a real opinion on it, really.
Res on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
As long as we can all agree it should be illegal for comcast to charge me more to access time.com than newsweek.com, I think we agree on the most important aspect of net neutrality.
I can agree with this as long as we both can agree that everyone should be charged $100 per month to access The Drudge Report, Newsmax, and 4chan
You know what's a much bigger bandwidth suck than peer to peer file swapping?
Those fucking illegal streaming video sites that every high school and college student is in to now. Piracy has gotten a little too hard and a little too risky when the goal is just to watch seasons of a TV show or some movie and you can do that on a site that's sort of like Youtube. That shit is so much more popular than bittorrent at this point.
I have a theory that the only reason they're ridiculously popular is because they don't realise that streaming is equally as illegal as "downloading".
They don't realise that they have to download the stream data to be able to watch it. I've had to tell a lot of my uni friends this, I don't think they fully believe me.
But downloading isn't the part that's a crime. And even if it were, that's unenforceable. The burden is not on the watcher to determine whether the program is properly licensed. Only the website is committing a crime here.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
As long as we can all agree it should be illegal for comcast to charge me more to access time.com than newsweek.com, I think we agree on the most important aspect of net neutrality.
I'm not sure I agree, actually. I don't think I know enough about how the internet works to form a real opinion on it, really.
Well, you see there are these trucks, and there are some tubes on them, and in those tubes are cats, and then you get to watch hulu!
As long as we can all agree it should be illegal for comcast to charge me more to access time.com than newsweek.com, I think we agree on the most important aspect of net neutrality.
I'm not sure I agree, actually. I don't think I know enough about how the internet works to form a real opinion on it, really.
Well, you see there are these trucks, and there are some tubes on them, and in those tubes are cats, and then you get to watch hulu!
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
I'm tempted to argue that if I'm torrenting something that I have the legal right to torrent, it shouldn't be my responsibility to ensure that other people in the swarm have a license as well.
But downloading isn't the part that's a crime. And even if it were, that's unenforceable. The burden is not on the watcher to determine whether the program is properly licensed. Only the website is committing a crime here.
Hell, people commit an average of 20 copyright infringements a day.
We have rules about linking to warez on the forums. I once tried to think about how that applied to embedded youtube movies, but then I got a headache and had to lie down.
Echo on
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
As long as we can all agree it should be illegal for comcast to charge me more to access time.com than newsweek.com, I think we agree on the most important aspect of net neutrality.
It comes back to the fact that consumers get screwed, regardless, and then we just lay down and take it.
Because we can't throw a million toward lobbying and campaign contributions.
But downloading isn't the part that's a crime. And even if it were, that's unenforceable. The burden is not on the watcher to determine whether the program is properly licensed. Only the website is committing a crime here.
Hell, people commit an average of 20 copyright infringements a day.
We have rules about linking to warez on the forums. I once tried to think about how that applied to embedded youtube movies, but then I got a headache and had to lie down.
Grab any old set of dice you have and wish to be a cheater with and place them on a metal tray so that the numbers you wish to have roll frequently are facing upward.
Preheat your oven to 250 degrees.
Insert dice for 10 minutes.
Remove dice.
The plastic inside condenses closers to the bottom of the dice so that they are now weighted in favor of your selected numbers.
Enjoy.
DasUberEdward on
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
So there is a methane seep around the capped oil well.
Posts
the lack of competition in the IP market is a big problem. It would benefit from some government regulation to open up competition.
The big problem is that the government doesn't want to pay for the infrastructure. They want industry to pay for the infrastructure. IP and cable companies don't want to pay for public infrastructure, so they won't lay fiber or cable until they're assured that their investment isn't going to be nationalized.
It's a sticky problem, and made worse by the fact that cable companies have really worked to wind state and city governments around their fingers.
Verizon laid FIOS through cambridge up to about three blocks from my house. Now comcast is suing them because they had some guarantee from the city back when they laid their own cable. It's a mess and ad-hoc civil court decisions are making development of a competitive infrastructure difficult and uneven.
The system we have now isn't great, but insisting that every human has a right to unlimited high-speed internet without addressing the money, infrastructure and business concerns isn't really a legitimate position to take IMO.
As many people have pointed out, you can just drop the whole "non-net neutral" part and get the same effect. Metered plans do not conflict with net neutrality as long as all traffic is metered the same.
It does if you're Carl Bildt, Swedish foreign minister and ex-PM!
See Mickey Mouse if you want a rather big example of crazy copyright law.
That kind of shit is why I use Privoxy in the first place.
Allowing all carriers access to the last mile of that cable would get rid of that kind of legal bullshit (with verizon vs comcast) That's another thing that has to happen, imo. So that whoever lays the cable, that last mile to the actual home or business is up for grabs to whoever can offer the best prices/service. So everyone is fighting over customers in the way it should be.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Hurray for corruption.
I swear Sweden is the only country where I trust my internet infrastructure to be sound. One of my friends here in Sweden has a better connection (meaning faster, and at home) than the entirety of the University of Bristol - probably the entirety of England to be honest.
What the shit is that?
And the root of the issue is the privileged position that our government gives to entities like Comcast. You protect your friends, and when your friends are lining your pockets with lobbying and campaign donations...well.
If Comcast didn't spend the amount they did on lobbying, they'd be able to offer a cheaper service. The system is designed to protect the status-quo, and change is directly hobbled by everyone involved.
Those fucking illegal streaming video sites that every high school and college student is in to now. Piracy has gotten a little too hard and a little too risky when the goal is just to watch seasons of a TV show or some movie and you can do that on a site that's sort of like Youtube. That shit is so much more popular than bittorrent at this point.
Lowering services costs and cutting lobbying would put a lot more money into lower-economic economies, and would provide an even better return on GNP.
I'm okay with forcing IP's to allow open access to their networks. I don't really think that they should be able to lock down competing services on a semi-public infrastructure.
I just don't care for some of the other aspects of the net neutrality cause.
I have a theory that the only reason they're ridiculously popular is because they don't realise that streaming is equally as illegal as "downloading".
They don't realise that they have to download the stream data to be able to watch it. I've had to tell a lot of my uni friends this, I don't think they fully believe me.
I mean, I think standing up for the little guy every once in awhile is worth it, regardless of the cost to corporations. Hell, I like the original Corporation law in the US: You form a corporation for a specific purpose (Imma gonna build a bridge), you complete the project and then your charter expires.
Wait, is that out?
oh god i need an extra 130 bucks to get a ds i need my monster rancher fix
That's the cause. That and opening up last mile fiber/cable for better competition. I think too many pirates/idiots have been talking the shit with you in earshot. They're a loud minority and they can shut their faces.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
That's the only aspect of the net neutrality cause! People might also want unlimited access, but that's a different matter entirely.
I wrote about that exact same thing.
Some fuckwit Swedish ECPAT-humping politicians here in Sweden wanted it to be illegal to look at child porn, because some people were just fapping to it on 4chan and never saving it.
That is the completely wrong target to aim at.
Perhaps this would be true in an ideal world, where the formula for pricing was (price paid by consumers at the old, flat rate) / (relative usage of individual customer). But a quick look at the metered billing tiers implemented in test markets by Time Warner and others shows that even the low-end users end up getting an extraordinarily raw deal.
I'm not sure I agree, actually. I don't think I know enough about how the internet works to form a real opinion on it, really.
I can agree with this as long as we both can agree that everyone should be charged $100 per month to access The Drudge Report, Newsmax, and 4chan
But downloading isn't the part that's a crime. And even if it were, that's unenforceable. The burden is not on the watcher to determine whether the program is properly licensed. Only the website is committing a crime here.
Well, you see there are these trucks, and there are some tubes on them, and in those tubes are cats, and then you get to watch hulu!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmeByDJ02mQ
Hell, people commit an average of 20 copyright infringements a day.
We have rules about linking to warez on the forums. I once tried to think about how that applied to embedded youtube movies, but then I got a headache and had to lie down.
Napoleon Complex
It comes back to the fact that consumers get screwed, regardless, and then we just lay down and take it.
Because we can't throw a million toward lobbying and campaign contributions.
By extension, I'm not sure whether it's something the government should be allowed to regulate to that extent.
Yeah it's funny how silly that rule is ultimately in light of all the youtube embedding we do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wfamPW3Eaw
i would have expected more of a humble-hobbit
Man, the only reason government should be allowed to regulate everything is that they're in bed with the regulatees.
Grab any old set of dice you have and wish to be a cheater with and place them on a metal tray so that the numbers you wish to have roll frequently are facing upward.
Preheat your oven to 250 degrees.
Insert dice for 10 minutes.
Remove dice.
The plastic inside condenses closers to the bottom of the dice so that they are now weighted in favor of your selected numbers.
Enjoy.
Giant Methane Bubble Extinction here we come
depends on the country.
it would generally be trickier to bring the dog back.