Not understanding Net Neutrality, especially never having seen the actual documents in question regarding the exact nature of the regulations to be adopted, means you have to be in favor of it, since you know it will be a magical thing.
The only group I trust less than the government is private enterprise, especially corporate. Of course, the two are so in bed with each other now that there’s hardly a difference. Corporate America runs he US government.
@KerovanNo that is not the definition or purpose of Net Neutrality. It has to do with choking the bandwidth of the internet you get unless you pay extra for it among other issues. The internet pipe is only so wide and those who pay extra could get the bigger piece of pie.
@T S Roberts – As far as Rita – I was referring to her comment not posture. And I found Carolina ability amusing as in the people in real life who can stand like that in heels and a dress.
Some people think all words considered anti-American are interchangeable: communist, marxist, nazi, fascist, anarchist, werewolf… regardless of their actual, specific meaning.
What she said has some truth in general. It seems like there is a fair share of voters that are ignorant of the issue. Mostly made of those who tend towards the far left and far right.. In this case I have to lean towards net neutrality. as the internet is as important to business and individual as other utilities that there has to be some over sight. I don’t like big government however if you think verizon att and the like will be your best interest you are a fool.
once again, a little explanation about net neutrality
some time ago, you got into internet to view web pages. you load a web page and you watch it for a while. While you are watching the web page, there is no bandwidth use. the page is already loaded in your computer, so there is no net usage while you are watching it.
since a few years ago, the routine of people that got into internet has changed a bit. now people just don’t view web pages, but also videos. video streaming makes more than half of internet traffic, and there is a difference between watching a web page and watching a video stream. unlike the web pages, you don’t have the video loaded in your computer while you watch it. the video is streaming for the whole video duration, so the bandwidth resource is not released. If the video lasts an hour, then you are using bandwidth for an hour
now, there were some people who though that selling bandwidth was a great business, and it was. but as times change, and people customs change, and business practices change, some business don’t want to change but change everything around them so they can keep getting money the way they used to. For example, when email got popular, the us postal service wanted to make a law so the emails also had to pay postage, because they could not keep up, and they were loosing business (but recently they have grown again, because of e-shopping)
now, those business that sold bandwidth had it all nice and pretty. they sold bandwidth plans to costumers, selling as a certain amount of bandwidth per second, or per minute or whatever, but actually, they don’t have the necessary resources to comply with all that. they sold those plans because when people view web pages, most of the time, their pipes are unused. people use the pipes while they load the web page, but once loaded, the pipe is unused and somebody else can use it. But if everybody is watching videos, the pipes are always used, and they don’t have pipes large enough to give the promised bandwidth to all the people as they promised. that’s the problem
so now, the carriers are blaming video providers, and sites that generate large bandwidth consumption, and they want to make them pay. but, when they first proposed that. everybody thought they were the sum of the earth (they are, but it was quite evident back then). so not to look like the critters they are, they did not presented it as ‘we don’t want to change our business models or we don’t want to give the service agreed to our costumers’, but ‘is the content providers fault’. and now they want to charge the content providers as well. that’s what net neutrality is about
so, if you pay more, you won’t view videos faster. instead, if you don’t pay, you won’t be able to view videos at all, or at a very low quality or speed, so it will trash your experience. according to them, the content providers are not the reason you actually paid for a service, to get content, but the ones guilty of making them change their business model
in previous post, replace sum by scum.net neutrality means that the carriers, whose only work should be to carry the data, don’t interfere on what is allowed through their piper or what is not. if they promise the costumer a certain amount of data, then that’s what they do, they don’t look for excuses, or tax the type of content in that data. they just give the amount of data agreed. that’s what net neutrality is about.
Agent54 about 9 years ago
Physics question – why does Carolina not fall over?
I do not even want to start on Rita’s problem.
Brass Orchid Premium Member about 9 years ago
Not understanding Net Neutrality, especially never having seen the actual documents in question regarding the exact nature of the regulations to be adopted, means you have to be in favor of it, since you know it will be a magical thing.
Mark Jeffrey Premium Member about 9 years ago
Even Rita could follow this … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
skald999 about 9 years ago
Interesting – It seems that depending on who you talk to the definition changes
Observer fo Irony about 9 years ago
I would have thought neutrality would mean hands off Congress.
cdward about 9 years ago
The only group I trust less than the government is private enterprise, especially corporate. Of course, the two are so in bed with each other now that there’s hardly a difference. Corporate America runs he US government.
vwdualnomand about 9 years ago
screw you verizon and comcast. you bunch of asdfkjlf;jkak wadfkl;dkjslfj;las. aoi;jSDfjiafdsji. aoifisdkzfa;fhopiewrhj.
Brass Orchid Premium Member about 9 years ago
Oh, good! We can still have lobbyists buying privilege and access then. I was afraid that the money stream would dry up.
Agent54 about 9 years ago
@KerovanNo that is not the definition or purpose of Net Neutrality. It has to do with choking the bandwidth of the internet you get unless you pay extra for it among other issues. The internet pipe is only so wide and those who pay extra could get the bigger piece of pie.
@T S Roberts – As far as Rita – I was referring to her comment not posture. And I found Carolina ability amusing as in the people in real life who can stand like that in heels and a dress.
Thomas Scott Roberts creator about 9 years ago
Some people think all words considered anti-American are interchangeable: communist, marxist, nazi, fascist, anarchist, werewolf… regardless of their actual, specific meaning.
shamest Premium Member about 9 years ago
What she said has some truth in general. It seems like there is a fair share of voters that are ignorant of the issue. Mostly made of those who tend towards the far left and far right.. In this case I have to lean towards net neutrality. as the internet is as important to business and individual as other utilities that there has to be some over sight. I don’t like big government however if you think verizon att and the like will be your best interest you are a fool.
redback about 9 years ago
once again, a little explanation about net neutrality
some time ago, you got into internet to view web pages. you load a web page and you watch it for a while. While you are watching the web page, there is no bandwidth use. the page is already loaded in your computer, so there is no net usage while you are watching it.
since a few years ago, the routine of people that got into internet has changed a bit. now people just don’t view web pages, but also videos. video streaming makes more than half of internet traffic, and there is a difference between watching a web page and watching a video stream. unlike the web pages, you don’t have the video loaded in your computer while you watch it. the video is streaming for the whole video duration, so the bandwidth resource is not released. If the video lasts an hour, then you are using bandwidth for an hour
now, there were some people who though that selling bandwidth was a great business, and it was. but as times change, and people customs change, and business practices change, some business don’t want to change but change everything around them so they can keep getting money the way they used to. For example, when email got popular, the us postal service wanted to make a law so the emails also had to pay postage, because they could not keep up, and they were loosing business (but recently they have grown again, because of e-shopping)
now, those business that sold bandwidth had it all nice and pretty. they sold bandwidth plans to costumers, selling as a certain amount of bandwidth per second, or per minute or whatever, but actually, they don’t have the necessary resources to comply with all that. they sold those plans because when people view web pages, most of the time, their pipes are unused. people use the pipes while they load the web page, but once loaded, the pipe is unused and somebody else can use it. But if everybody is watching videos, the pipes are always used, and they don’t have pipes large enough to give the promised bandwidth to all the people as they promised. that’s the problem
so now, the carriers are blaming video providers, and sites that generate large bandwidth consumption, and they want to make them pay. but, when they first proposed that. everybody thought they were the sum of the earth (they are, but it was quite evident back then). so not to look like the critters they are, they did not presented it as ‘we don’t want to change our business models or we don’t want to give the service agreed to our costumers’, but ‘is the content providers fault’. and now they want to charge the content providers as well. that’s what net neutrality is about
so, if you pay more, you won’t view videos faster. instead, if you don’t pay, you won’t be able to view videos at all, or at a very low quality or speed, so it will trash your experience. according to them, the content providers are not the reason you actually paid for a service, to get content, but the ones guilty of making them change their business model
etc, I got tired of writing, but you get the idea
redback about 9 years ago
in previous post, replace sum by scum.net neutrality means that the carriers, whose only work should be to carry the data, don’t interfere on what is allowed through their piper or what is not. if they promise the costumer a certain amount of data, then that’s what they do, they don’t look for excuses, or tax the type of content in that data. they just give the amount of data agreed. that’s what net neutrality is about.
corpcasselbury about 9 years ago
Which I find monumentally scary!
johnzakour Premium Member about 9 years ago
To sum it up unless you are Verizon or ATT or Sprint Net Neutrality is a good thing.
ChrisV about 9 years ago
The downside is your legs and butt don’t look quite as good.
Hunter7 about 9 years ago
the only place I have heard (or should say read) about net neutrality, is here in the world of comics. So – it is an imaginary thing. Right?