Obama's Plan to Control the Internet
#61
You can have unlimited internet (meaning hours on line) with a limited bandwidth. You pay more for more bandwidth.
You can also have plans that are for, so many gigbytes.

What you don't want is, for say, century link to decide they want to charge a premium, for access to Netflix over the general web.
Or with an incentive payment from Netflix, block Hulu's data stream.
Or not let you download any fox news.
Reply
#62
Why? Its their business. If they want to carry somethings or not carry some why not? If they want to charge more or less or free why not? I.had a auto parts store for years should I have had to provide equal acccess for all brands? Same price for all brands? Should any supplier have to sell to me just because I want or desire a certian item? The fact is this. In a liberals mind everyone should have equal access for " fairness" never mind the fact that some companies have far far more money invested in the distribution of product ( the internet) in a liberals mind equal access is a entitlement/ right. Riddle me.this, why aren't phone bills set up the same as the libs want for the net? Talking to grandma on the phone is a " right" is it not? How about electricity? why the huge difference in rates for some? ( some even can't access the electric grid is this fair?) Do you have a issue for paying for what one uses in other area's? ( use more pay more, less pay less) if you don't have a issue with that, why the issue here? There is limited access/ bandwidth now and projected to get worse untill they figure away around it. Why should the data hogs not have to pay more for their higher use?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#63
(12-15-2017, 08:30 AM)capitalist pig Wrote: Why?  Its their business.  If they want to carry somethings or not carry some why not?  If they want to charge more or less or free why not?  I.had a auto parts store for years should I have had to provide equal acccess for all brands? Same price for all brands? Should any supplier have to sell to me just because I want or desire a certian item?  The fact is this.  In a liberals mind everyone should have equal access for " fairness"  never mind the fact that some companies have far far more money invested in the distribution of product ( the internet)  in a liberals mind equal access is a entitlement/ right.   Riddle me.this, why aren't phone bills set up the same as the libs want for the net?  Talking to grandma on the phone is a " right" is it not?  How about electricity? why the huge difference in rates for some?  ( some even can't access the electric grid is this fair?) Do you have a issue for paying for what one uses in other area's? (  use more pay more, less pay less)  if you don't have a issue with that, why the issue here?  There is limited access/ bandwidth now and projected to get worse untill they figure away around it. Why should the data hogs not have to pay more for their higher use?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

the local phone company decides it doesn't like California and blocks all call in and out to California.
 Its their business.  If they want to carry somethings or not carry some why not
Reply
#64
Yeah, I still remember those horrifying years between the mid 90's and 2015, when we were all screwed over by the "Big Corp", and only the rich had access to the internet......  Wait... that never happened, did it?
Reply
#65
(12-15-2017, 02:01 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(12-15-2017, 08:30 AM)capitalist pig Wrote: Why?  Its their business.  If they want to carry somethings or not carry some why not?  If they want to charge more or less or free why not?  I.had a auto parts store for years should I have had to provide equal acccess for all brands? Same price for all brands? Should any supplier have to sell to me just because I want or desire a certian item?  The fact is this.  In a liberals mind everyone should have equal access for " fairness"  never mind the fact that some companies have far far more money invested in the distribution of product ( the internet)  in a liberals mind equal access is a entitlement/ right.   Riddle me.this, why aren't phone bills set up the same as the libs want for the net?  Talking to grandma on the phone is a " right" is it not?  How about electricity? why the huge difference in rates for some?  ( some even can't access the electric grid is this fair?) Do you have a issue for paying for what one uses in other area's? (  use more pay more, less pay less)  if you don't have a issue with that, why the issue here?  There is limited access/ bandwidth now and projected to get worse untill they figure away around it. Why should the data hogs not have to pay more for their higher use?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

the local phone company decides it doesn't like California and blocks all call in and out to California.
 Its their business.  If they want to carry somethings or not carry some why not
So? In a free market I can promise you someone would remedy that problem.... new rules only two years old, now back to the old rules which were in affect for what 25,30 years? Did you have any issues? Which has the longer track record of being successful? Old or new?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#66
Curious here, is there any government program you on the left that you ever oppose? Why do you think the government can always improve things? Have you noticed that the government is full of perverse people on both sides. (Watch the current news)

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#67
(12-15-2017, 03:43 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: Curious here, is there any government program you on the left that you ever oppose?   Why do you think the government can always improve things?  Have you noticed that the government is full of perverse people on both sides.  (Watch the current news)

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Why do you think the government can't ever improve anything or that we don't ever need government regulations?
Reply
#68
(12-14-2017, 11:00 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(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: 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

"The most obvious way is to increase bandwidth by laying more fiber." It's the most obvious way but far from the only way. You should read the whole article. More fiber alone hasn't been relied on for a long time (technologically speaking). You should expand your knowledge into modulation schemes, advances in protocols, system architectures, algorithms etc, etc, etc. You haven't even scratched the surface.

I see you've discovered what everyone else has been using for decades... new technologies. Go with it.
Reply
#69
(12-15-2017, 06:08 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(12-15-2017, 03:43 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: Curious here, is there any government program you on the left that you ever oppose?   Why do you think the government can always improve things?  Have you noticed that the government is full of perverse people on both sides.  (Watch the current news)

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Why do you think the government can't ever improve anything or that we don't ever need government regulations?
I didn't say I was in favor of no government. Limited government as our founding fathers envisioned. Do you think we are anywhere near that? Example in the fifties one in 20 jobs required a licence of some sort. Now it is one in four? Think that is a good thing?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#70
(12-15-2017, 07:13 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-15-2017, 06:08 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(12-15-2017, 03:43 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: Curious here, is there any government program you on the left that you ever oppose?   Why do you think the government can always improve things?  Have you noticed that the government is full of perverse people on both sides.  (Watch the current news)

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Why do you think the government can't ever improve anything or that we don't ever need government regulations?
I didn't say I was in favor of no government. Limited government as our founding fathers envisioned.  Do you think we are anywhere near that?  Example in the fifties one in 20 jobs required a licence of some sort. Now it is one in four?  Think that is a good thing?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 I can't give an answer to that question. I can say that there are good reasons people do need a license. And I don't see how comparing NOW to what went on in the 50's makes any sense.

If you expect an answer then tell me what jobs you think shouldn't require a license.
Reply
#71
No government means pig types would impose their will through force. I see nothing indicating any hint of humanity or compassion for others in any sense.
And that's why we need government.
Reply
#72
(12-15-2017, 06:25 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 11:00 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(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: 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

"The most obvious way is to increase bandwidth by laying more fiber." It's the most obvious way but far from the only way. You should read the whole article. More fiber alone hasn't been relied on for a long time (technologically speaking). You should expand your knowledge into modulation schemes, advances in protocols, system architectures, algorithms etc, etc, etc. You haven't even scratched the surface.

I see you've discovered what everyone else has been using for decades... new technologies. Go with it.


I was involved in fiber optics back in the eighties.
They would lay a cable with multiple fibers, because it cost the same to put in a fifty fiber bundle, as a single fiber.
The cost was trenching and stuff. The cost of the actual fiber was peanuts.
Then, they figured out away to multiplex a fiber by using multiple wavelength laser.
Now each fiber could carry teen times as much data.
That was the beginning of low cost long distance phone service.
Bandwidth was cheap.
Fiber is not the only way to transmit data. There is also microwave links.

Along with new technology like local cache memory, where popular web sites are captured and stored at a local provider.
I don't think the web is running out of bandwidth.
Reply
#73
(12-16-2017, 12:37 AM)chuck white Wrote:
(12-15-2017, 06:25 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 11:00 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 10:12 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 09:35 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: 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

"The most obvious way is to increase bandwidth by laying more fiber." It's the most obvious way but far from the only way. You should read the whole article. More fiber alone hasn't been relied on for a long time (technologically speaking). You should expand your knowledge into modulation schemes, advances in protocols, system architectures, algorithms etc, etc, etc. You haven't even scratched the surface.

I see you've discovered what everyone else has been using for decades... new technologies. Go with it.


I was involved in fiber optics back in the eighties.
They would lay a cable with multiple fibers, because it cost the same to put in a fifty fiber bundle, as a single fiber.
The cost was trenching and stuff. The cost of the actual fiber was peanuts.
Then, they figured out away to multiplex a fiber by using multiple wavelength laser.
Now each fiber could carry teen times as much data.
That was the beginning of low cost long distance phone service.
Bandwidth was cheap.
Fiber is not the only way to transmit data. There is also microwave links.

Along with new technology like local cache memory, where popular web sites are captured and stored at a local provider.
I don't think the web is running out of bandwidth.

Frequency domain multiplexing has been around for a long time, and still quite useful.

One minor beef I've always had is getting people to define just what they mean when they use the term "bandwidth". It changes depending on who you happen to be talking to. Originally it defined how much frequency spectrum was needed by any particular radio emission. Then the computer world took it over and it usually seems to mean data speed or through put or block usage or a couple other things or a combination of all or part of these. aaugh!

I don't know if other people notice but computer folks hate to be definitive about computer stuff. Big Grin
Reply
#74
Lol. Governments killed at least 90 million in the last century alone.... Funny kind of compassion would you not say?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#75
PWI this early?
Reply
#76
Net Neutrality has ended?


We are all going to die!!!!!!!
Reply
#77
Reading material for the dumbfucks with big mouths spewing shit that they know nothing about... the Pig, the Little Man and the SFmoron...

https://www.snopes.com/2017/12/14/fcc-re...eutrality/
...and before you go squealing about this being from Snopes... take a look at it, dipwads.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...fcc-letter

Inform yourselves.
Reply
#78
Just another reason to get out and vote every Republican out of office.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)