Obama's Plan to Control the Internet
#41
(12-14-2017, 06:42 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 04:55 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: For you people that are confused. When you use more you may have to pay more...  I run heavy equipment and " use" the road up more then the average guy and pay much more in road tax then the average guy. So you in favor of everyone paying the same regardless of how much one uses, are you in favor of rolling back the higher taxes on me because of my higher use?   You should be as we all use the same " road" . Why should you be able to drive the same miles as me and pay less??  Please do explain....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

That's not a good example. Your heavy equipment is deemed to put greater wear and tear on the public roadway. Thus you get to pay more for that beneficial use at the public's expense. Data passing through the internet doesn't cause wear and tear on the data links. The internet isn't a road, it's a data link.
It is a good example. Heavy data use does affect others. Try streaming 10 different movies on different computers in your house let's say. Then let's say you have a roomate that pays half the internet bill ( You are equal payers if confused) did you affect them?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#42
(12-14-2017, 07:04 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 06:42 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 04:55 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: For you people that are confused. When you use more you may have to pay more...  I run heavy equipment and " use" the road up more then the average guy and pay much more in road tax then the average guy. So you in favor of everyone paying the same regardless of how much one uses, are you in favor of rolling back the higher taxes on me because of my higher use?   You should be as we all use the same " road" . Why should you be able to drive the same miles as me and pay less??  Please do explain....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

That's not a good example. Your heavy equipment is deemed to put greater wear and tear on the public roadway. Thus you get to pay more for that beneficial use at the public's expense. Data passing through the internet doesn't cause wear and tear on the data links. The internet isn't a road, it's a data link.
It is a good example.  Heavy data use does affect others.  Try streaming 10 different movies on different computers in your house let's say.  Then let's say you have a roomate that pays half the internet bill (  You are equal payers if confused)  did you affect them?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Why would I want to stream 10 movies at once?
Reply
#43
(12-14-2017, 07:07 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:04 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 06:42 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 04:55 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: For you people that are confused. When you use more you may have to pay more...  I run heavy equipment and " use" the road up more then the average guy and pay much more in road tax then the average guy. So you in favor of everyone paying the same regardless of how much one uses, are you in favor of rolling back the higher taxes on me because of my higher use?   You should be as we all use the same " road" . Why should you be able to drive the same miles as me and pay less??  Please do explain....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

That's not a good example. Your heavy equipment is deemed to put greater wear and tear on the public roadway. Thus you get to pay more for that beneficial use at the public's expense. Data passing through the internet doesn't cause wear and tear on the data links. The internet isn't a road, it's a data link.
It is a good example.  Heavy data use does affect others.  Try streaming 10 different movies on different computers in your house let's say.  Then let's say you have a roomate that pays half the internet bill (  You are equal payers if confused)  did you affect them?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Why would I want to stream 10 movies at once?
Thats not the point..... Good grief I have a hard time beliving one can be so stupid.( maybe you are, maybe not) It's about one using more and another that is using less subsidizing the one using more. Let's say you have a roomate that takes 4 hour showers each day and you 10 minutes. Would you be happy splitting the gas bill in half?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#44
(12-14-2017, 07:07 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:04 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 06:42 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 04:55 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: For you people that are confused. When you use more you may have to pay more...  I run heavy equipment and " use" the road up more then the average guy and pay much more in road tax then the average guy. So you in favor of everyone paying the same regardless of how much one uses, are you in favor of rolling back the higher taxes on me because of my higher use?   You should be as we all use the same " road" . Why should you be able to drive the same miles as me and pay less??  Please do explain....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

That's not a good example. Your heavy equipment is deemed to put greater wear and tear on the public roadway. Thus you get to pay more for that beneficial use at the public's expense. Data passing through the internet doesn't cause wear and tear on the data links. The internet isn't a road, it's a data link.
It is a good example.  Heavy data use does affect others.  Try streaming 10 different movies on different computers in your house let's say.  Then let's say you have a roomate that pays half the internet bill (  You are equal payers if confused)  did you affect them?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Why would I want to stream 10 movies at once?

Why would I want a roommate?  Laughing
Reply
#45
(12-14-2017, 07:19 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:07 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:04 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: It is a good example.  Heavy data use does affect others.  Try streaming 10 different movies on different computers in your house let's say.  Then let's say you have a roomate that pays half the internet bill (  You are equal payers if confused)  did you affect them?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Why would I want to stream 10 movies at once?

Why would I want a roommate?  Laughing

Laughing  Exactly.
Reply
#46
(12-14-2017, 07:19 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:07 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:04 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 06:42 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 04:55 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: For you people that are confused. When you use more you may have to pay more...  I run heavy equipment and " use" the road up more then the average guy and pay much more in road tax then the average guy. So you in favor of everyone paying the same regardless of how much one uses, are you in favor of rolling back the higher taxes on me because of my higher use?   You should be as we all use the same " road" . Why should you be able to drive the same miles as me and pay less??  Please do explain....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

That's not a good example. Your heavy equipment is deemed to put greater wear and tear on the public roadway. Thus you get to pay more for that beneficial use at the public's expense. Data passing through the internet doesn't cause wear and tear on the data links. The internet isn't a road, it's a data link.
It is a good example.  Heavy data use does affect others.  Try streaming 10 different movies on different computers in your house let's say.  Then let's say you have a roomate that pays half the internet bill (  You are equal payers if confused)  did you affect them?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Why would I want to stream 10 movies at once?
Thats not the point..... Good grief I have a hard time beliving one can be so stupid.( maybe you are, maybe not) It's about one using more and another that is using less  subsidizing the one using more. Let's say you have a roomate that takes 4 hour showers each day and you 10 minutes. Would you be happy splitting the gas bill in half?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I was screwing with you cause your example is still wrong.

Here is what it's all about. Say you are trying to stream your movie and your roomy is streaming his. Now consider if your roomy's movie is streaming just fine but yours is slow, buffering, jerky cause you are streaming from a web site not owned by your service provider. And you both pay the same monthly bill. Now to put a fine point on it you can't just switch and stream from the same location as your roomy cause the movie you want isn't available there.

Now how happy are you?
Reply
#47
(12-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:19 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:07 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:04 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 06:42 PM)Cuzz Wrote: That's not a good example. Your heavy equipment is deemed to put greater wear and tear on the public roadway. Thus you get to pay more for that beneficial use at the public's expense. Data passing through the internet doesn't cause wear and tear on the data links. The internet isn't a road, it's a data link.
It is a good example.  Heavy data use does affect others.  Try streaming 10 different movies on different computers in your house let's say.  Then let's say you have a roomate that pays half the internet bill (  You are equal payers if confused)  did you affect them?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Why would I want to stream 10 movies at once?
Thats not the point..... Good grief I have a hard time beliving one can be so stupid.( maybe you are, maybe not) It's about one using more and another that is using less  subsidizing the one using more. Let's say you have a roomate that takes 4 hour showers each day and you 10 minutes. Would you be happy splitting the gas bill in half?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I was screwing with you cause your example is still wrong.

Here is what it's all about. Say you are trying to stream your movie and your roomy is streaming his. Now consider if your roomy's movie is streaming just fine but yours is slow, buffering, jerky cause you are streaming from a web site not owned by your service provider. And you both pay the same monthly bill. Now to put a fine point on it you can't just switch and stream from the same location as your roomy cause the movie you want isn't available there.

Now how happy are you?
So what? Why should your provider have access to something not owned by them? If they want it pay for it. Do you go through life thinking you are entitled to something you don't own. You admit you think the provider is entitled to something they don't own. Very currious...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#48
(12-14-2017, 08:25 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:19 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:07 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:04 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: It is a good example.  Heavy data use does affect others.  Try streaming 10 different movies on different computers in your house let's say.  Then let's say you have a roomate that pays half the internet bill (  You are equal payers if confused)  did you affect them?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Why would I want to stream 10 movies at once?
Thats not the point..... Good grief I have a hard time beliving one can be so stupid.( maybe you are, maybe not) It's about one using more and another that is using less  subsidizing the one using more. Let's say you have a roomate that takes 4 hour showers each day and you 10 minutes. Would you be happy splitting the gas bill in half?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I was screwing with you cause your example is still wrong.

Here is what it's all about. Say you are trying to stream your movie and your roomy is streaming his. Now consider if your roomy's movie is streaming just fine but yours is slow, buffering, jerky cause you are streaming from a web site not owned by your service provider. And you both pay the same monthly bill. Now to put a fine point on it you can't just switch and stream from the same location as your roomy cause the movie you want isn't available there.

Now how happy are you?
So what?  Why should your provider have access to something not owned by them?  If they want it pay for it. Do you go through life thinking you are entitled to something you don't own.  You admit you think the provider is entitled to something they don't own.  Very currious...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Good grief, this isn't cable TV. You plainly don't understand how the internet works.
Reply
#49
(12-14-2017, 08:25 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:19 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:07 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:04 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: It is a good example.  Heavy data use does affect others.  Try streaming 10 different movies on different computers in your house let's say.  Then let's say you have a roomate that pays half the internet bill (  You are equal payers if confused)  did you affect them?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Why would I want to stream 10 movies at once?
Thats not the point..... Good grief I have a hard time beliving one can be so stupid.( maybe you are, maybe not) It's about one using more and another that is using less  subsidizing the one using more. Let's say you have a roomate that takes 4 hour showers each day and you 10 minutes. Would you be happy splitting the gas bill in half?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I was screwing with you cause your example is still wrong.

Here is what it's all about. Say you are trying to stream your movie and your roomy is streaming his. Now consider if your roomy's movie is streaming just fine but yours is slow, buffering, jerky cause you are streaming from a web site not owned by your service provider. And you both pay the same monthly bill. Now to put a fine point on it you can't just switch and stream from the same location as your roomy cause the movie you want isn't available there.

Now how happy are you?
So what? Why should your provider have access to something not owned by them? If they want it pay for it. Do you go through life thinking you are entitled to something you don't own. You admit you think the provider is entitled to something they don't own. Very currious...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
I have Amazon prime and net flicks. They don't carry many of the same movies. Shouldn't I be able to pay one price and get all??? Hmmm ?? Its not fair!!! I have to pay twice to get what I want.. Lol we should all have the same internet to make it " fair" wow. Pretty clueless in life on how things work.....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#50
(12-14-2017, 08:29 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:25 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:19 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:07 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Why would I want to stream 10 movies at once?
Thats not the point..... Good grief I have a hard time beliving one can be so stupid.( maybe you are, maybe not) It's about one using more and another that is using less  subsidizing the one using more. Let's say you have a roomate that takes 4 hour showers each day and you 10 minutes. Would you be happy splitting the gas bill in half?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I was screwing with you cause your example is still wrong.

Here is what it's all about. Say you are trying to stream your movie and your roomy is streaming his. Now consider if your roomy's movie is streaming just fine but yours is slow, buffering, jerky cause you are streaming from a web site not owned by your service provider. And you both pay the same monthly bill. Now to put a fine point on it you can't just switch and stream from the same location as your roomy cause the movie you want isn't available there.

Now how happy are you?
So what?  Why should your provider have access to something not owned by them?  If they want it pay for it. Do you go through life thinking you are entitled to something you don't own.  You admit you think the provider is entitled to something they don't own.  Very currious...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Good grief, this isn't cable TV. You plainly don't understand how the internet works.
O I do. You seem to think it's free and everone should be equal. I can assure you it is not free. Talk about confused...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#51
(12-14-2017, 08:31 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:29 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:25 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 07:19 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: Thats not the point..... Good grief I have a hard time beliving one can be so stupid.( maybe you are, maybe not) It's about one using more and another that is using less  subsidizing the one using more. Let's say you have a roomate that takes 4 hour showers each day and you 10 minutes. Would you be happy splitting the gas bill in half?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I was screwing with you cause your example is still wrong.

Here is what it's all about. Say you are trying to stream your movie and your roomy is streaming his. Now consider if your roomy's movie is streaming just fine but yours is slow, buffering, jerky cause you are streaming from a web site not owned by your service provider. And you both pay the same monthly bill. Now to put a fine point on it you can't just switch and stream from the same location as your roomy cause the movie you want isn't available there.

Now how happy are you?
So what?  Why should your provider have access to something not owned by them?  If they want it pay for it. Do you go through life thinking you are entitled to something you don't own.  You admit you think the provider is entitled to something they don't own.  Very currious...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Good grief, this isn't cable TV. You plainly don't understand how the internet works.
O  I do.  You seem to think it's free and everone should be equal.  I can assure you it is not free. Talk about confused...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

No, you haven't displayed any understanding that you do.
Reply
#52
(12-14-2017, 08:36 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:31 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:29 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:25 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Yeah, I was screwing with you cause your example is still wrong.

Here is what it's all about. Say you are trying to stream your movie and your roomy is streaming his. Now consider if your roomy's movie is streaming just fine but yours is slow, buffering, jerky cause you are streaming from a web site not owned by your service provider. And you both pay the same monthly bill. Now to put a fine point on it you can't just switch and stream from the same location as your roomy cause the movie you want isn't available there.

Now how happy are you?
So what?  Why should your provider have access to something not owned by them?  If they want it pay for it. Do you go through life thinking you are entitled to something you don't own.  You admit you think the provider is entitled to something they don't own.  Very currious...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Good grief, this isn't cable TV. You plainly don't understand how the internet works.
O  I do.  You seem to think it's free and everone should be equal.  I can assure you it is not free. Talk about confused...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

No, you haven't displayed any understanding that you do.
O really? Bandwidth is limited which you don't seem to understand. Someone or something that is using more should not have to pay more??

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#53
(12-14-2017, 08:36 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:31 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:29 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:25 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Yeah, I was screwing with you cause your example is still wrong.

Here is what it's all about. Say you are trying to stream your movie and your roomy is streaming his. Now consider if your roomy's movie is streaming just fine but yours is slow, buffering, jerky cause you are streaming from a web site not owned by your service provider. And you both pay the same monthly bill. Now to put a fine point on it you can't just switch and stream from the same location as your roomy cause the movie you want isn't available there.

Now how happy are you?
So what?  Why should your provider have access to something not owned by them?  If they want it pay for it. Do you go through life thinking you are entitled to something you don't own.  You admit you think the provider is entitled to something they don't own.  Very currious...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Good grief, this isn't cable TV. You plainly don't understand how the internet works.
O  I do.  You seem to think it's free and everone should be equal.  I can assure you it is not free. Talk about confused...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

No, you haven't displayed any understanding that you do.
Read this article if confused.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-the-internet-reach-its-limit/

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#54
Still think bandwidth is unlimited and free to put in? Upgrade? Cuzz.....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#55
(12-14-2017, 08:40 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:36 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:31 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:29 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:25 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: So what?  Why should your provider have access to something not owned by them?  If they want it pay for it. Do you go through life thinking you are entitled to something you don't own.  You admit you think the provider is entitled to something they don't own.  Very currious...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Good grief, this isn't cable TV. You plainly don't understand how the internet works.
O  I do.  You seem to think it's free and everone should be equal.  I can assure you it is not free. Talk about confused...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

No, you haven't displayed any understanding that you do.
O really? Bandwidth is limited which you don't seem to understand. Someone or something that is using more should not have to pay more??  

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

It's not about bandwidth. It's about access.

Using my example above. You and your roomy use the same internet provider and you both pay the same monthly bill for the same bandwidth. Your movie is being slowed down by your provider because it doesn't come from their streaming service. They could stream it faster but won't. Your roomy's movie comes from their streaming service is streaming fine.

To exaggerate the example just a bit. Say you have only one internet provider you can use. You want to access web sites that you like because they're all about old muscle cars. Your service provider says they could let you do that but they won't cause it's not their web site. However they would let you access those web sites if a third party would pay them to let you.

Still happy?

Still happy?
Reply
#56
(12-14-2017, 09:06 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:40 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:36 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:31 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:29 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Good grief, this isn't cable TV. You plainly don't understand how the internet works.
O  I do.  You seem to think it's free and everone should be equal.  I can assure you it is not free. Talk about confused...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

No, you haven't displayed any understanding that you do.
O really? Bandwidth is limited which you don't seem to understand. Someone or something that is using more should not have to pay more??  

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

It's not about bandwidth. It's about access.

Using my example above. You and your roomy use the same internet provider and you both pay the same monthly bill for the same bandwidth. Your movie is being slowed down by your provider because it doesn't come from their streaming service. They could stream it faster but won't. Your roomy's movie comes from their streaming service is streaming fine.

To exaggerate the example just a bit. Say you have only one internet provider you can use. You want to access web sites that you like because they're all about old muscle cars. Your service provider says they could let you do that but they won't cause it's not their web site. However they would let you access those web sites if a third party would pay them to let you.

Still happy?

Still happy?
All wrong. Do you understand that a limited product means limited access?? Its the same thing. Why should you have the same as someone that is willing to pay for more.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#57
(12-14-2017, 09:10 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 09:06 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:40 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:36 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:31 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: O  I do.  You seem to think it's free and everone should be equal.  I can assure you it is not free. Talk about confused...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

No, you haven't displayed any understanding that you do.
O really? Bandwidth is limited which you don't seem to understand. Someone or something that is using more should not have to pay more??  

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

It's not about bandwidth. It's about access.

Using my example above. You and your roomy use the same internet provider and you both pay the same monthly bill for the same bandwidth. Your movie is being slowed down by your provider because it doesn't come from their streaming service. They could stream it faster but won't. Your roomy's movie comes from their streaming service is streaming fine.

To exaggerate the example just a bit. Say you have only one internet provider you can use. You want to access web sites that you like because they're all about old muscle cars. Your service provider says they could let you do that but they won't cause it's not their web site. However they would let you access those web sites if a third party would pay them to let you.

Still happy?

Still happy?
All wrong.  Do you understand that a limited product means limited access??  Its the same thing. Why should you have the same as someone that is willing to pay for more.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

No. You're stuck on the bandwidth thing. If it was you'd have a point but it's really not. Greater bandwidth is and always has been readily available if you want to pay more. It would still be available to you under net neutrality rules.
Reply
#58
(12-14-2017, 09:27 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 09:10 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 09:06 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:40 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:36 PM)Cuzz Wrote: No, you haven't displayed any understanding that you do.
O really? Bandwidth is limited which you don't seem to understand. Someone or something that is using more should not have to pay more??  

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

It's not about bandwidth. It's about access.

Using my example above. You and your roomy use the same internet provider and you both pay the same monthly bill for the same bandwidth. Your movie is being slowed down by your provider because it doesn't come from their streaming service. They could stream it faster but won't. Your roomy's movie comes from their streaming service is streaming fine.

To exaggerate the example just a bit. Say you have only one internet provider you can use. You want to access web sites that you like because they're all about old muscle cars. Your service provider says they could let you do that but they won't cause it's not their web site. However they would let you access those web sites if a third party would pay them to let you.

Still happy?

Still happy?
All wrong.  Do you understand that a limited product means limited access??  Its the same thing. Why should you have the same as someone that is willing to pay for more.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

No. You're stuck on the bandwidth thing. If it was you'd have a point but it's really not. Greater bandwidth is and always has been readily available if you want to pay more. It would still be available to you under net neutrality rules.
Did you read the article I linked. Unlimted bandwidth as you say is not true. You can't have a debate when you are not honest. Apply common sense, if there is a unlimited product there would not be a argument about limiting it. There is a limited product ( bandwidth which then limits access) hence the argument to have the right to charge more for those that use more...


Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#59
(12-14-2017, 09:35 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 09:27 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 09:10 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 09:06 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 08:40 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: O really? Bandwidth is limited which you don't seem to understand. Someone or something that is using more should not have to pay more??  

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

It's not about bandwidth. It's about access.

Using my example above. You and your roomy use the same internet provider and you both pay the same monthly bill for the same bandwidth. Your movie is being slowed down by your provider because it doesn't come from their streaming service. They could stream it faster but won't. Your roomy's movie comes from their streaming service is streaming fine.

To exaggerate the example just a bit. Say you have only one internet provider you can use. You want to access web sites that you like because they're all about old muscle cars. Your service provider says they could let you do that but they won't cause it's not their web site. However they would let you access those web sites if a third party would pay them to let you.

Still happy?

Still happy?
All wrong.  Do you understand that a limited product means limited access??  Its the same thing. Why should you have the same as someone that is willing to pay for more.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

No. You're stuck on the bandwidth thing. If it was you'd have a point but it's really not. Greater bandwidth is and always has been readily available if you want to pay more. It would still be available to you under net neutrality rules.
Did you read the article I linked.  Unlimted bandwidth as you say is not true. You can't have a debate when you are not honest. Apply common sense, if there is a unlimited product there would not be a argument about limiting it. There is a limited product ( bandwidth which then limits access) hence the argument to have the right to charge more for those that use more...


Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

I said nothing about unlimited anything. You should be honest too, if you can. Bandwidth and access are not the same thing. They can impact each other but they can be dealt with each differently.

If you claim your statements are unassailable you need to back 'em up. Feel free to get as technical as you want.

By the way, perhaps you should read the article you posted. It discusses exactly why bandwidth isn't the issue.
Reply
#60
(12-14-2017, 10:12 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 09:35 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 09:27 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 09:10 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 09:06 PM)Cuzz Wrote: It's not about bandwidth. It's about access.

Using my example above. You and your roomy use the same internet provider and you both pay the same monthly bill for the same bandwidth. Your movie is being slowed down by your provider because it doesn't come from their streaming service. They could stream it faster but won't. Your roomy's movie comes from their streaming service is streaming fine.

To exaggerate the example just a bit. Say you have only one internet provider you can use. You want to access web sites that you like because they're all about old muscle cars. Your service provider says they could let you do that but they won't cause it's not their web site. However they would let you access those web sites if a third party would pay them to let you.

Still happy?

Still happy?
All wrong.  Do you understand that a limited product means limited access??  Its the same thing. Why should you have the same as someone that is willing to pay for more.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

No. You're stuck on the bandwidth thing. If it was you'd have a point but it's really not. Greater bandwidth is and always has been readily available if you want to pay more. It would still be available to you under net neutrality rules.
Did you read the article I linked.  Unlimted bandwidth as you say is not true. You can't have a debate when you are not honest. Apply common sense, if there is a unlimited product there would not be a argument about limiting it. There is a limited product ( bandwidth which then limits access) hence the argument to have the right to charge more for those that use more...


Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

I said nothing about unlimited anything. You should be honest too, if you can. Bandwidth and access are not the same thing. They can impact each other but they can be dealt with each differently.

If you claim your statements are unassailable you need to back 'em up. Feel free to get as technical as you want.

By the way, perhaps you should read the article you posted. It discusses exactly why bandwidth isn't the issue.
"How do you keep the Internet from reaching “the limit”?
The most obvious way is to increase bandwidth by laying more fiber. Instead of having just one transatlantic fiber-optic cable, for example, you have two or five or 10. That’s the brute-force approach, but it’s very expensive—you need to dig up the ground and lay the fiber, you need multiple optical amplifiers, integrated transmitters and receivers, and so on. An alternative " this is a direct quote from the article........ And now what part don't you understand about limits on internet use without increasing bandwidth or exploring new technologies?????

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)