before making comments about ‘I am in favor’ or ‘I am against it’ and give reasons that have nothing to do, it would be a good idea to know what net neutrality means:More than half of the internet traffic is because of videos, and telcos (the carriers) don’t like that people watch videos because apparently it either wears of their pipes or seems to clog them, instead of being the reason why people actually subscribe to an internet provider.
So, since video channels are damaging the internet service (according to carriers), they should bill the video channels so they get the right of having their content flow throw their pipes, besides of the billing they do to the users, to who they agreed to provide internet connection, without specifying the type of content the user was allowed to view.
Just to note: carriers did not invent the internet, they were companies who saw the opportunity and got in the wagon, just like most companies and most business. Still, they want to control the type of traffic that flows through the cables, even though they do not provide or create that content, AND NOW IS LEGAL TO DO THIS IN USA (not that I know they are doing it, but there was a ruling recently that allows telcos to charge content providers to get the right to go through their channels); that’s why people are talking about it recently, even without knowing what does it mean.
Once again, the telcos charge the users so they can view Internet content, and they have to comply with their part, yet they want to charge the content providers.. so what the user sees is not what is there on the internet, but whatever content provided by content generator who agreed to be blackmailed. It means you can go to a web site not according to the site availability or the state law, but according to the carrier you subscribed.
If they decide what content can go through the pipes and what not, are they responsible for that content? if they allow flow fo content related with child pornography or terrorism, are they accomplices? will they start CHANGING the content of web sites according to what they want? Will they start blocking parts of a web site?
This has nothing to do with if we like ads or not in the web pages; is called free market. If you don’t like ads in google pages, would you pay for their services? are they supposed to invest millions in servers and electricity, development and so on, but provide all for free with no revenue? why not your own work, would yo do it for free? This has nothing to do with placing ads in pages, it has to do with the fact that carriers want to control the content allowed in their channels, and that they want to bill for a service, but without providing that service or nothing in return
in other words, if your telco (carrier) decides that ‘gocomics’ uses too much bandwidth (or any other reason), and you live in usa, you may stop watching cartoons till gocomics pays the carrier extortion for the right of having their content allowed in that telco
The early projection that the internet would be a ‘free exchange of information’ was close to hippie idealism and naiveté. It sounded great, but how was it going to work int he long run?
I want that if I pay for more bandwidth, I get more bandwidth in the quantity agreed by a contract, and nobody messes with the content of that bandwidth, which is nobody’s business but mine (as it is now)
I take a lot of the photos myself. The views out the window are usually of an office complex in my hometown- though a couple of the library parking lot. A couple of weeks ago Roy was was being robbed in front of my old apartment building (where I lived when I started on the strip.)
In all honesty, the only way to have net neutrality would be for he federal government to completely take possession of the internet. There would be no internet providers, just the Feds. Let’s take a quick look at that scenario, shall we.With the Feds totally owning the internet, you would have:
1. No porn. Think of the FCC and broadcast networks. No one would be able to cuss, show a woman’s bare chest, (although for the life of me, I can’t see how they allow men to flaunt theirs),2. The post office would finally be able to charge for emails. There would be only one email provider and if you spam, illegally hack into someone’s email, it would be a federal offense. Also, you wouldn’t be able to send naughty pictures because the Feds control it.3. The Feds could read all your email without faking it to get a search warrant from our Top Secret Court. The Feds would know every web site you have ever went and it would be forever.4. The Feds could take away your right to have internet.5. The Feds would tax the internet and the Federal Government would know your checking acct info., and all business that you do. So, they could charge you on your purchases, and the states would be able to charge sales taxes.6. Because of all the neat things in your house, like TV’s, refrigerators, radios, etc., your information could be sold easily to businesses and you would get tailor made ads every time you got onto your computer. They could make sure that your heating/cooling system was set to 68 degrees in the winter and 75 degrees in the summer.
These are just some of the things would come with net neutrality. Welcome to 1984.
johnzakour Premium Member almost 10 years ago
Hey readers I have a new free story The Raven Haired Rogue which you can read for free and even control the flow.
lisajwalton almost 10 years ago
Oooo…..how exciting! Can’t wait to read it! :-D
phaze58 almost 10 years ago
IT was , quite the moral dilemma, but I think I chose wisely.
jd wigman almost 10 years ago
no! on net neutrality, you want the most corrupt entity ever controlling the content of the web?
Thomas Scott Roberts creator almost 10 years ago
That’s only his tenth donut.
rshive almost 10 years ago
But if Roy didn’t eat he’d fade away. And who would take care of the donut tree?
johnzakour Premium Member almost 10 years ago
To me, net neutrality means nobody controls the internet.
redback almost 10 years ago
before making comments about ‘I am in favor’ or ‘I am against it’ and give reasons that have nothing to do, it would be a good idea to know what net neutrality means:More than half of the internet traffic is because of videos, and telcos (the carriers) don’t like that people watch videos because apparently it either wears of their pipes or seems to clog them, instead of being the reason why people actually subscribe to an internet provider.
So, since video channels are damaging the internet service (according to carriers), they should bill the video channels so they get the right of having their content flow throw their pipes, besides of the billing they do to the users, to who they agreed to provide internet connection, without specifying the type of content the user was allowed to view.
Just to note: carriers did not invent the internet, they were companies who saw the opportunity and got in the wagon, just like most companies and most business. Still, they want to control the type of traffic that flows through the cables, even though they do not provide or create that content, AND NOW IS LEGAL TO DO THIS IN USA (not that I know they are doing it, but there was a ruling recently that allows telcos to charge content providers to get the right to go through their channels); that’s why people are talking about it recently, even without knowing what does it mean.
Once again, the telcos charge the users so they can view Internet content, and they have to comply with their part, yet they want to charge the content providers.. so what the user sees is not what is there on the internet, but whatever content provided by content generator who agreed to be blackmailed. It means you can go to a web site not according to the site availability or the state law, but according to the carrier you subscribed.
If they decide what content can go through the pipes and what not, are they responsible for that content? if they allow flow fo content related with child pornography or terrorism, are they accomplices? will they start CHANGING the content of web sites according to what they want? Will they start blocking parts of a web site?
This has nothing to do with if we like ads or not in the web pages; is called free market. If you don’t like ads in google pages, would you pay for their services? are they supposed to invest millions in servers and electricity, development and so on, but provide all for free with no revenue? why not your own work, would yo do it for free? This has nothing to do with placing ads in pages, it has to do with the fact that carriers want to control the content allowed in their channels, and that they want to bill for a service, but without providing that service or nothing in return
redback almost 10 years ago
in other words, if your telco (carrier) decides that ‘gocomics’ uses too much bandwidth (or any other reason), and you live in usa, you may stop watching cartoons till gocomics pays the carrier extortion for the right of having their content allowed in that telco
Thomas Scott Roberts creator almost 10 years ago
The early projection that the internet would be a ‘free exchange of information’ was close to hippie idealism and naiveté. It sounded great, but how was it going to work int he long run?
Thomas Scott Roberts creator almost 10 years ago
I actually used a real cup.
redback almost 10 years ago
I want that if I pay for more bandwidth, I get more bandwidth in the quantity agreed by a contract, and nobody messes with the content of that bandwidth, which is nobody’s business but mine (as it is now)
Thomas Scott Roberts creator almost 10 years ago
I take a lot of the photos myself. The views out the window are usually of an office complex in my hometown- though a couple of the library parking lot. A couple of weeks ago Roy was was being robbed in front of my old apartment building (where I lived when I started on the strip.)
serial232 almost 10 years ago
In all honesty, the only way to have net neutrality would be for he federal government to completely take possession of the internet. There would be no internet providers, just the Feds. Let’s take a quick look at that scenario, shall we.With the Feds totally owning the internet, you would have:
1. No porn. Think of the FCC and broadcast networks. No one would be able to cuss, show a woman’s bare chest, (although for the life of me, I can’t see how they allow men to flaunt theirs),2. The post office would finally be able to charge for emails. There would be only one email provider and if you spam, illegally hack into someone’s email, it would be a federal offense. Also, you wouldn’t be able to send naughty pictures because the Feds control it.3. The Feds could read all your email without faking it to get a search warrant from our Top Secret Court. The Feds would know every web site you have ever went and it would be forever.4. The Feds could take away your right to have internet.5. The Feds would tax the internet and the Federal Government would know your checking acct info., and all business that you do. So, they could charge you on your purchases, and the states would be able to charge sales taxes.6. Because of all the neat things in your house, like TV’s, refrigerators, radios, etc., your information could be sold easily to businesses and you would get tailor made ads every time you got onto your computer. They could make sure that your heating/cooling system was set to 68 degrees in the winter and 75 degrees in the summer.
These are just some of the things would come with net neutrality. Welcome to 1984.