klingon 10 Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Interesting stories (or non stories) around at the moment as there are rumors that Google is in talks with an ISP regarding "tiered" internet. This on gizmodo sums up possible scenarios quite funnily. Will be very interesting to see if there is any truth to things being said and what happens. "Alarmist propaganda"? Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Where's za porn?!? (Not that I use it). Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 But seriously, ISPs shouldn't be allowed to determine whose content you have (better) access to, they need to stay content/service neutral. Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Why? ISPs are businesses and they provide a service. Why can't they determine whose content you have? Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Dunno. Link to post Share on other sites
SantaCruz 0 Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 RB, it would similar to the phone company refusing to let you call certain numbers, the post office not delivery mail to certain address, etc. They've never been in the business of filtering content or communications and they should never be. Link to post Share on other sites
Mintyjulep 0 Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Originally Posted By: SantaCruz RB, it would similar to the phone company refusing to let you call certain numbers, the post office not delivery mail to certain address, etc. They've never been in the business of filtering content or communications and they should never be. we already have that in NZ where you have to pay more to contact other mobile companies. I think it is completely inappropriate and it is basically enabling censorship - they could easily restrict you if they didn't like what you were saying. I.e. if you had an anti-american blog or a news blog on wordpress America already has limited access to real information regarding international affairs, and heck even their own affairs, this will only worsen that. Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Originally Posted By: SantaCruz RB, it would similar to the phone company refusing to let you call certain numbers, the post office not delivery mail to certain address, etc. They've never been in the business of filtering content or communications and they should never be. I am all for net neutrality - but as MintyNZ pointed out, mobile phone companies do it. Link to post Share on other sites
Tex 3 Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Originally Posted By: RobBright Why? ISPs are businesses and they provide a service. Why can't they determine whose content you have? Because they have no right at determining it. WE determine it , they are RESTRICTING it. Redefining what the internet is because they have a large market share... of nothing essentially... if you discount advertising, against what it has been about since inception. Free access to a veritable plethora of information. They are just monopolising it. Sux big time despite the jokes . Besides I don't think it will work. HA HAAA BUT THEN all you western world suckers thought a non-cash society would be different and BETTER by using cards. Now you pay $2 a withdrawal AND have to wait an extra minute or more for every goddam transaction at a petrol station while some other sucker in front of you types in a pin number and waits for approval. Yeh your life got easier becuase of it... Fark me sometime I wonder where captitalism ends. Is it the ultimate perpetual machine. RANT ENDS HERE>. Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I don't pay to use ATM. Why do we determine it Tex? Did we invent the internet? Link to post Share on other sites
Tex 3 Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Are you REALLY asking that question Rob? My first response is "are you serious?" "You mean you don't know?" 'We' did not invent it but 'we' sure did contribute to its content. You presently get something for free (I don't mean the connection and data transfer) that someone else thinks they can regulate and charge for. If it is on the internet you can get it now. We choose what to look at and when via whichever search engine, web page etc we desire. Content is not restricted by the provider it is restricted by us. If you HAVE to pay for some content you chose whether you want to or not for that proprietary information, that’s fine. It is another money gouge. Reverse bait and switch... they have you captured now let’s make them pay above and beyond what they used to. Even more than that; it is censorship. Here is the scenario (as in hypothetical). With changes in domain names coming.... NEWS LTD realising it is losing massive profits on paper based news, registers particular domain names (www.Wallstreetjournal.news) and uses its monopoly and wealth to make you pay to access its sites via googles gateway. They are struggling already to work out how to get people trapped into to paying for it. All reliable news outlets do the same.... the only way to get news is now via a .news domain which is all pay per view. The scenarios are endless. Guess I will just have to wait a while for the "I told you so" Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I do know - but your stubbornness to think about this from a different angle is boring me. I know what the internet is, I know how different people can craft and create what is on there for people to see. They are not talking about stopping people from looking at content are they? (well besides piracy) In various news reports, they have all mentioned talking about giving different sites different priorities of content. i.e. video content over say entertainment. Originally Posted By: Tex Here is the scenario. With changes in domain names coming.... NEWS LTD realising it is losing massive profits on paper based news, registers particular domain names (www.Wallstreetjournal.news) and uses its monopoly and wealth to make you pay to access its sites via googles gateway. They are struggling already to work out how to get people trapped into to paying for it. All reliable news outlets do the same.... the only way to get news is now via a .news domain which is all pay per view. The scenarios are endless. Am actually pissing myself laughing with this one! Which reliable news outlets are doing this? Please carry on with your outdated and "hippy"-esque comments haven't laughed this hard in a while. Link to post Share on other sites
Tex 3 Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Rob I come here for enjoyment and recreation incuding light hearted banter. If I bore you why read on? I have an opinion, on a novel idea. I thought that was what the thread was alluding to establishing; opinion. You haven't offered your position as yet. Rather than attack me why not enlighten us with your contemporary views? Not interested in name calling, so if that is how you generally communicate just save yourself the time in typing any more. Link to post Share on other sites
Tex 3 Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 PS *light bulb goes on* Rob while my rant above quoted you it was not directed at you. It was a self critique of what I experience. That is I am the sucker, we is the sucker. You dig .... Ah forget it.... Not enough emoticons! Link to post Share on other sites
Mintyjulep 0 Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I don't pay to use an ATM either - cashless society works great for me. I lose my wallet, it costs me about $60 to replace all of my cards, and the most expensive one is my drivers license at $50. Bonus - I don't lose $200 cash. I like my eftpos card muchly. What was the point of the cashless society jab? Link to post Share on other sites
Tex 3 Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Here abouts you often get 5 or 10 free transactions per month when you use YOUR banks ATMs. Use someone elses and you get stung with a $2 fee. Those transactions include EFTPOS transactions and recently have started including debit card transactions as well. The the point of that particular jab is that where once you paid nothing, that is you did not have to pay for access to your own money, now you do = bad. The analogy, generated via induction and deduction, is that this internet tiering is also a way to get you to pay for something that was once free. Free good. Cost Bad. That is all. If you disagree with that last bit before please explain your reasoning Link to post Share on other sites
Mintyjulep 0 Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Free good. Cost bad. Agreed I can't speak for others in NZ, but the most I've ever spent on a transaction was .50c for another banks ATM - never paid for an instore transaction. Would that be the banks charging you or the eftpos service provider? Link to post Share on other sites
Tex 3 Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 YAY! The banks mostly but if it is an unaffiliated provider then it is them too. We used to get water free as well. Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Originally Posted By: Tex You haven't offered your position as yet. Rather than attack me why not enlighten us with your contemporary views? Originally Posted By: RobBright I am all for net neutrality - but as MintyNZ pointed out, mobile phone companies do it. Will reply a bit more in detail tomorrow as I am a bit tipsy right now after drinking some Kirin Autumn beers. Link to post Share on other sites
NoFakie 45 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 If we lose net neutrality, all rickrolls will point to Jedward. Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 true. Dunno what that means but it sounds ominous. Link to post Share on other sites
2pints-mate 0 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Originally Posted By: Mr Wiggles If we lose net neutrality, all rickrolls will point to Jedward. And god help us! Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 As I am now sober I shall state my position for Tex: I am 100% in favour for keeping net neutrality, and as quoted earlier on, all for it too. BUT, this issue with net neutrality is not to do with censorship, we will still be able to get the same content, just with different priority settings deciding on what speed we shall get it at. Originally Posted By: Tex We choose what to look at and when via whichever search engine, web page etc we desire. Content is not restricted by the provider it is restricted by us. If you HAVE to pay for some content you chose whether you want to or not for that proprietary information, that’s fine. It is another money gouge. Reverse bait and switch... they have you captured now let’s make them pay above and beyond what they used to. Even more than that; it is censorship. Here is the scenario (as in hypothetical). With changes in domain names coming.... NEWS LTD realising it is losing massive profits on paper based news, registers particular domain names (www.Wallstreetjournal.news) and uses its monopoly and wealth to make you pay to access its sites via googles gateway. They are struggling already to work out how to get people trapped into to paying for it. All reliable news outlets do the same.... the only way to get news is now via a .news domain which is all pay per view. The scenarios are endless. A lot of the content on the internet is in the public domain; however, there is also a lot which is copyrighted material, i.e. the aforementioned newspapers by Tex, magazines, videos etc. I have no qualms in saying that if these print companies feel the need to charge people to read their material, then fine, so be it. They have produced the material, it is theirs to do as they so wish. You would pay for a copy of their newspaper before, so why shouldn't you have to pay for their online edition. Look at GG in the iPad thread - ok he got three months for free (git! ) but if priced correctly, either monthly or with micropayments, then the business model could work. Your point here seems to be very misleading (is that the right word?) as first you seem to be saying, it's fine to pay for some things on the net, but then you seem to be saying you are against it?! Now how about this story today about gamers paying for improved bandwidth for their gaming? Surely that is going against net neutrality, but people are going to pay that cost? And why is that? Because it is what they want to do. Why should they have to "subsidise" for other people's usage, or downloading of videos and music etc, if perhaps they themselves aren't going to use it? Originally Posted By: Tex Redefining what the internet is because they have a large market share... of nothing They have a large market share of the connections, the servers things are hosted on, the physical entities that need upgrading to improve net services. Why do you think South Korea and Japan are constantly rated as the best places in the world for internet connections? As they have constantly innovated and improved their infrastructure. And where did this money come from? Us the people paying for our monthly fee. If they hadn't had this money, where do you think the countries would be? Stuck at the same speed as the UK, USA, mainland Europe, which is lagging (pun not intended) years behind them. Video content, tv on demand through internet, and other services are the way forward. Most TV's come with internet connections in the back. How would you feel that the TV you wanted to watch, was being slowed down because your next door neighbour was downloading some illegal porn, or videos? How about, also a reality now, when surgical operations are being performed internationally via the internet, that the connection is terrible because other people in the hospital are using it to watch TV? Some things SHOULD take priority over other things on the internet. Let's be realistic here, the internet we have now, has completely outgrown what ARPANET was going to be almost 50years, nay, even 15yrs ago. It's sprawled out into this big mess that has no central governance whatsoever looking after it. Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 after such a long post, you should have a drink. Link to post Share on other sites
Tex 3 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Thanks Rob interesting read. I just think it is the thin end of a wedge for particular "business models" to make us pay for something we once got freely. But also some of what I have read DOES say it could be about restricting content, creating 'artificial scarcity' and ramping up access fees. This is also with the back drop here in Aus where the Government wants to add its own internet content filter (censorship). Free Good. Cost bad Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts